Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #570157 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-13 15:39 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-16 12:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 65 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-13 15:39 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 09:34 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 17:59 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:57 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:34 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 19:15 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 04:06 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 00:47 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 18:05 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 14:30 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 16:56 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 00:25 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 18:30 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 02:09 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 21:41 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:33 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 15:49 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 23:46 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 02:38 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 16:57 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 11:25 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 19:21 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 12:55 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 20:49 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 19:39 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 05:23 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 23:58 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-04-14 16:46 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 18:06 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 14:31 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:27 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 16:56 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 00:26 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 18:32 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 02:10 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 21:41 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:34 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 15:50 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 17:53 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:56 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 20:35 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 19:17 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 04:07 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 00:48 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 18:08 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 14:35 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-14 22:29 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 17:05 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 00:32 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 19:20 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:38 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 16:00 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 23:52 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 02:49 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 16:59 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 10:49 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 18:16 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 00:32 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:35 +0000
Name calling is allowed/expected. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-04-16 12:00 -0700
Re: Name calling is allowed/expected. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-16 15:14 -0400
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 11:26 -0700
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 19:22 +0000
Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 12:54 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 12:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Name calling is allowed/expected. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.16{0.00P.Seattle.2016}> |
| In reply to | #570959 |
Mikkel_Haaheim wrote: > Jim and Fred, I don't think I am the only one here getting > sick of your mutual lack of civility. > ENOUGH with the insults and name calling. Take it somewhere else. This is Usenet, name calling is allowed/expected. > BTW: could someone explain why I don't seem to be > receiving any of the posts Jim is responding to? Likely, GoogleGroups is droppping McCall's posts because, indirectly, he's spaming this (random) gmail account: From: Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> news:8124hbt0do1pgiftnskavohbe8h5h268ff@4ax.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 15:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Name calling is allowed/expected. |
| Message-ID | <57128f28$0$46680$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #570982 |
On 04/16/2016 03:00 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Mikkel_Haaheim wrote: >> Jim and Fred, I don't think I am the only one here getting >> sick of your mutual lack of civility. >> ENOUGH with the insults and name calling. Take it somewhere else. > > This is Usenet, name calling is allowed/expected. For once Rolf, is right. USENET netiquette requires puerile name-calling as proper Net manners. >> BTW: could someone explain why I don't seem to be >> receiving any of the posts Jim is responding to? > > Likely, GoogleGroups is droppping McCall's posts > because, indirectly, he's spaming this (random) gmail account: > > From: Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> > news:8124hbt0do1pgiftnskavohbe8h5h268ff@4ax.com > Censorship is good. Usenet must go. Anything that promotes that is something that needs to be done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4t05hbti9ese447v4f2la91oim5edlirv6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #570946 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I really can?t be bothered to figure out the messes you get yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > into. You?ll have to pay me if you want me to do your tech support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unreadable and it is not a utf-8 issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [rest of support request snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you sent me a check? If so, you?re going to have to wait until I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can cash it. If not, take your 1980s tech woes elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The solution on my end is simple; ignore posts that don't adhere to the RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is it non-compliant. Since it looks fine to everyone but you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you sure it isn't YOUR end that is not RFC compliant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rean the RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. Your reception is non-compliant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bile spewing idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So your complaint that his transmission is non-compliant in the face
>>>>>>>>>>>> of it looking fine to everyone but you would be what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>When was your poll taken to determine the percentage of people that see
>>>>>>>>>>>those characters as a single quote?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why are you the only one complaining, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only one to notice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I've said, but you wanted to argue with me about it.
>>>>>>>> Nobody else sees it, Jim. It's just YOU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And your poll was taken when, space cadet, or are you claiming to be
>>>>>>>able to read minds now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't even AGREE with Jimp the Simp Chimp without him wanting to
>>>>>> argue. Chimp, *YOU* said "Only one to notice" in response to my
>>>>>> asking you why you were the only one complaining. I agreed with your
>>>>>> response and now you want to know when *I* ran a poll? When did YOU
>>>>>> run a poll, dipshit?
>>>>>
>>>>>What you actually said was "Nobody else sees it...", liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're stuck again, chimp. YOU said what you are complaining that *I*
>>>> said.
>>>
>>>In English please.
>>>
>>
>> That is English. I'm sorry, are the words to big for you?
>>
>>>> See above, where your answer to why you are the only one
>>>> complaining is that you are "the only one to notice". In other words,
>>>> nobody else saw it.
>>>
>>>YOU asked for reasons and I gave you a LIST of POSSIBLE reasons.
>>>
>>
>> And then proceeded to berate me for agreeing with you.
>>
>>>
>>>You jumped on one and ran with it like dog with a sock in its mouth.
>>>
>>
>> And you have all along been squalling like a chimp with a pepper up
>> its ass.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Look two sentences above your lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Look at your agreement that you are "only one to notice".
>>>
>>>Look at the list where that is one of many.
>>>
>>
>> Irrelevant. You've expended great effort to berate me for AGREEING
>> with you.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only one to make the effort to comment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And nobody bothered even when you started caterwauling about it? Why
>>>>>>>> do they all hate you so, Jim?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"caterwauling"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look it up. I'll try to restrict myself to one syllable words in
>>>>>> future so that perhaps you can follow along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you, going on and on and on and on and on
>>>>>>>about something that has nothing to do with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps if you actually answered the questions instead of ducking
>>>>>> them? Just a thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you, going on and on and on and on and on
>>>>>about something that has nothing to do with you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're wailing in several public fora about this, Jimp. Your wailing
>>>> makes it everyone's business.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I am responding whatever YOU posted to.
>>>
>>
>> Uh, YOU started this discussion, Chimp.
>>
>>>
>>>If you are posting to too many groups, that is YOUR issue.
>>>
>>
>> Usenet NEWS is not email, Chimp. Why did you post this to ANY
>> newsgroup in the first place?
>>
>>>>>>>>>A statement of fact is not a complaint.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? On what planet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. Are you stupid or are you a liar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me help you out. "This meat is overcooked." Assuming the meat
>>>>>>>> actually is overcooked, that's a statement of fact. It's also a
>>>>>>>> complaint about the state of the meat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only to the thin skinned and ultra sensitive, which fits you very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's stupid and you don't know the meaning of the word 'complaint'.
>>>>>> So what does 'complaint' mean on Planet Chimp? Here on Earth where
>>>>>> English speaking humans live it means "a statement that a situation is
>>>>>> unsatisfactory". You know, like the overdone meat isn't satisfactory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now tell me again how a "statement of fact is not a complaint".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A statement of fact is not a complaint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're stupid. You seem to think that a complaint must be untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, but you seem to think a statement of fact MUST be a complaint.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where did you get that from?
>>>>
>>>
>>>From YOUR diatribe on the subject.
>>>
>>
>> And once again we see that Chimp Just Can't Read. YOU complained in a
>> public newsgroup that someone was (according to you) doing something
>> that "isn't RFC compliant". That's a COMPLAINT, Chimp, which is why
>> you ranted on and on about it to the point of killfiling the
>> 'offender'. Then you claimed "A statement of fact is not a
>> complaint." When I point out that it most certainly can be, you stand
>> on your head and claim I've once again said something that I never
>> said (that all statements of fact are complaints).
>>
>> If you didn't want everyone on the newsgroup involved, WHY DID YOU
>> POST YOUR COMPLAINT THERE?
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Why do you care so much that you keep going on about it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because I think it gives great insight into how your head works (or
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't). You're the only one complaining, yet you insist that the
>>>>>>>>>> problem must be at his end. Typical of you. Jim is never wrong; it's
>>>>>>>>>> always the other guy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And you are the only school yard bully going on and on and on and on
>>>>>>>>>about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why did you bring it up?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because reading his posts were annoying, but I have solved that problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet here you are, still caterwauling about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are the one going on and on and on and on and on about something
>>>>>>>that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You 'solved the problem' (from your perspective, which solution is to
>>>>>> simply steadfastly ignore that part of reality; very like your usual
>>>>>> 'solution' to things). So why are you still wanking on about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, Chimp. It's always someone else and never you...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are the one going on and on and on and on and on about something
>>>>>that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm just responding to your whines in a public forum, Chimp.
>>>>
>>>> Usenet isn't email, remember?
>>>>
>>>
>>>What does email have to do with anything, space cadet, or is that the
>>>only red herring you could think of at the moment?
>>>
>>
>> What email has to do with anything, chimp, is that if you think what
>> you had to say isn't anyone's business but the gentleman you were
>> complaining about and you, email is the proper tool for that exchange.
>> Since you obviously thought it was the business of the entire cluster
>> of newsgroups you posted it to (because you posted it there), it's
>> rather stupid for you to complain about how it "has absolutely nothing
>> to do with [me]" now. If you believe that, YOU SHOULD HAVE SENT YOUR
>> COMPLAINT IN EMAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>>
>> Usenet isn't email, chimp.
>
>Says the denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.
>
You're a lying sack of shit, Jim.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v0gauc-4gl.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #570974 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I really can?t be bothered to figure out the messes you get yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > into. You?ll have to pay me if you want me to do your tech support. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unreadable and it is not a utf-8 issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [rest of support request snipped] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you sent me a check? If so, you?re going to have to wait until I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can cash it. If not, take your 1980s tech woes elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The solution on my end is simple; ignore posts that don't adhere to the RFC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is it non-compliant. Since it looks fine to everyone but you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you sure it isn't YOUR end that is not RFC compliant? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rean the RFC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. Your reception is non-compliant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bile spewing idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So your complaint that his transmission is non-compliant in the face >>>>>>>>>>>>> of it looking fine to everyone but you would be what? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>When was your poll taken to determine the percentage of people that see >>>>>>>>>>>>those characters as a single quote? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why are you the only one complaining, Jim? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Only one to notice. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I've said, but you wanted to argue with me about it. >>>>>>>>> Nobody else sees it, Jim. It's just YOU. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And your poll was taken when, space cadet, or are you claiming to be >>>>>>>>able to read minds now? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can't even AGREE with Jimp the Simp Chimp without him wanting to >>>>>>> argue. Chimp, *YOU* said "Only one to notice" in response to my >>>>>>> asking you why you were the only one complaining. I agreed with your >>>>>>> response and now you want to know when *I* ran a poll? When did YOU >>>>>>> run a poll, dipshit? >>>>>> >>>>>>What you actually said was "Nobody else sees it...", liar. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're stuck again, chimp. YOU said what you are complaining that *I* >>>>> said. >>>> >>>>In English please. >>>> >>> >>> That is English. I'm sorry, are the words to big for you? >>> >>>>> See above, where your answer to why you are the only one >>>>> complaining is that you are "the only one to notice". In other words, >>>>> nobody else saw it. >>>> >>>>YOU asked for reasons and I gave you a LIST of POSSIBLE reasons. >>>> >>> >>> And then proceeded to berate me for agreeing with you. >>> >>>> >>>>You jumped on one and ran with it like dog with a sock in its mouth. >>>> >>> >>> And you have all along been squalling like a chimp with a pepper up >>> its ass. >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Look two sentences above your lie. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Look at your agreement that you are "only one to notice". >>>> >>>>Look at the list where that is one of many. >>>> >>> >>> Irrelevant. You've expended great effort to berate me for AGREEING >>> with you. >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Only one to make the effort to comment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And nobody bothered even when you started caterwauling about it? Why >>>>>>>>> do they all hate you so, Jim? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"caterwauling"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look it up. I'll try to restrict myself to one syllable words in >>>>>>> future so that perhaps you can follow along. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you, going on and on and on and on and on >>>>>>>>about something that has nothing to do with you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps if you actually answered the questions instead of ducking >>>>>>> them? Just a thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you, going on and on and on and on and on >>>>>>about something that has nothing to do with you. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're wailing in several public fora about this, Jimp. Your wailing >>>>> makes it everyone's business. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I am responding whatever YOU posted to. >>>> >>> >>> Uh, YOU started this discussion, Chimp. >>> >>>> >>>>If you are posting to too many groups, that is YOUR issue. >>>> >>> >>> Usenet NEWS is not email, Chimp. Why did you post this to ANY >>> newsgroup in the first place? >>> >>>>>>>>>>A statement of fact is not a complaint. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Really? On what planet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>All of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bullshit. Are you stupid or are you a liar? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me help you out. "This meat is overcooked." Assuming the meat >>>>>>>>> actually is overcooked, that's a statement of fact. It's also a >>>>>>>>> complaint about the state of the meat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Only to the thin skinned and ultra sensitive, which fits you very well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So it's stupid and you don't know the meaning of the word 'complaint'. >>>>>>> So what does 'complaint' mean on Planet Chimp? Here on Earth where >>>>>>> English speaking humans live it means "a statement that a situation is >>>>>>> unsatisfactory". You know, like the overdone meat isn't satisfactory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now tell me again how a "statement of fact is not a complaint". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>A statement of fact is not a complaint. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're stupid. You seem to think that a complaint must be untrue. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope, but you seem to think a statement of fact MUST be a complaint. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Where did you get that from? >>>>> >>>> >>>>From YOUR diatribe on the subject. >>>> >>> >>> And once again we see that Chimp Just Can't Read. YOU complained in a >>> public newsgroup that someone was (according to you) doing something >>> that "isn't RFC compliant". That's a COMPLAINT, Chimp, which is why >>> you ranted on and on about it to the point of killfiling the >>> 'offender'. Then you claimed "A statement of fact is not a >>> complaint." When I point out that it most certainly can be, you stand >>> on your head and claim I've once again said something that I never >>> said (that all statements of fact are complaints). >>> >>> If you didn't want everyone on the newsgroup involved, WHY DID YOU >>> POST YOUR COMPLAINT THERE? >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Why do you care so much that you keep going on about it? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because I think it gives great insight into how your head works (or >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't). You're the only one complaining, yet you insist that the >>>>>>>>>>> problem must be at his end. Typical of you. Jim is never wrong; it's >>>>>>>>>>> always the other guy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And you are the only school yard bully going on and on and on and on >>>>>>>>>>about it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why did you bring it up? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Because reading his posts were annoying, but I have solved that problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yet here you are, still caterwauling about it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You are the one going on and on and on and on and on about something >>>>>>>>that has absolutely nothing to do with you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You 'solved the problem' (from your perspective, which solution is to >>>>>>> simply steadfastly ignore that part of reality; very like your usual >>>>>>> 'solution' to things). So why are you still wanking on about it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, Chimp. It's always someone else and never you... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You are the one going on and on and on and on and on about something >>>>>>that has absolutely nothing to do with you. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm just responding to your whines in a public forum, Chimp. >>>>> >>>>> Usenet isn't email, remember? >>>>> >>>> >>>>What does email have to do with anything, space cadet, or is that the >>>>only red herring you could think of at the moment? >>>> >>> >>> What email has to do with anything, chimp, is that if you think what >>> you had to say isn't anyone's business but the gentleman you were >>> complaining about and you, email is the proper tool for that exchange. >>> Since you obviously thought it was the business of the entire cluster >>> of newsgroups you posted it to (because you posted it there), it's >>> rather stupid for you to complain about how it "has absolutely nothing >>> to do with [me]" now. If you believe that, YOU SHOULD HAVE SENT YOUR >>> COMPLAINT IN EMAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE. >>> >>> Usenet isn't email, chimp. >> >>Says the denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers. >> > > You're a lying sack of shit, Jim. Racist deniers aren't worth talking to. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3365hbh2s1iekchb26q13kl2ljs4gmm10q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #570996 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I really can?t be bothered to figure out the messes you get yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > into. You?ll have to pay me if you want me to do your tech support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unreadable and it is not a utf-8 issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [rest of support request snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you sent me a check? If so, you?re going to have to wait until I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can cash it. If not, take your 1980s tech woes elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The solution on my end is simple; ignore posts that don't adhere to the RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is it non-compliant. Since it looks fine to everyone but you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you sure it isn't YOUR end that is not RFC compliant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rean the RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. Your reception is non-compliant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bile spewing idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your complaint that his transmission is non-compliant in the face
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of it looking fine to everyone but you would be what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>When was your poll taken to determine the percentage of people that see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>those characters as a single quote?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you the only one complaining, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Only one to notice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I've said, but you wanted to argue with me about it.
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody else sees it, Jim. It's just YOU.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And your poll was taken when, space cadet, or are you claiming to be
>>>>>>>>>able to read minds now?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't even AGREE with Jimp the Simp Chimp without him wanting to
>>>>>>>> argue. Chimp, *YOU* said "Only one to notice" in response to my
>>>>>>>> asking you why you were the only one complaining. I agreed with your
>>>>>>>> response and now you want to know when *I* ran a poll? When did YOU
>>>>>>>> run a poll, dipshit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What you actually said was "Nobody else sees it...", liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're stuck again, chimp. YOU said what you are complaining that *I*
>>>>>> said.
>>>>>
>>>>>In English please.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is English. I'm sorry, are the words to big for you?
>>>>
>>>>>> See above, where your answer to why you are the only one
>>>>>> complaining is that you are "the only one to notice". In other words,
>>>>>> nobody else saw it.
>>>>>
>>>>>YOU asked for reasons and I gave you a LIST of POSSIBLE reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And then proceeded to berate me for agreeing with you.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You jumped on one and ran with it like dog with a sock in its mouth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you have all along been squalling like a chimp with a pepper up
>>>> its ass.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Look two sentences above your lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at your agreement that you are "only one to notice".
>>>>>
>>>>>Look at the list where that is one of many.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. You've expended great effort to berate me for AGREEING
>>>> with you.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Only one to make the effort to comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And nobody bothered even when you started caterwauling about it? Why
>>>>>>>>>> do they all hate you so, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"caterwauling"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look it up. I'll try to restrict myself to one syllable words in
>>>>>>>> future so that perhaps you can follow along.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you, going on and on and on and on and on
>>>>>>>>>about something that has nothing to do with you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps if you actually answered the questions instead of ducking
>>>>>>>> them? Just a thought.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you, going on and on and on and on and on
>>>>>>>about something that has nothing to do with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're wailing in several public fora about this, Jimp. Your wailing
>>>>>> makes it everyone's business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am responding whatever YOU posted to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, YOU started this discussion, Chimp.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you are posting to too many groups, that is YOUR issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Usenet NEWS is not email, Chimp. Why did you post this to ANY
>>>> newsgroup in the first place?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>A statement of fact is not a complaint.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Really? On what planet?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Are you stupid or are you a liar?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let me help you out. "This meat is overcooked." Assuming the meat
>>>>>>>>>> actually is overcooked, that's a statement of fact. It's also a
>>>>>>>>>> complaint about the state of the meat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only to the thin skinned and ultra sensitive, which fits you very well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it's stupid and you don't know the meaning of the word 'complaint'.
>>>>>>>> So what does 'complaint' mean on Planet Chimp? Here on Earth where
>>>>>>>> English speaking humans live it means "a statement that a situation is
>>>>>>>> unsatisfactory". You know, like the overdone meat isn't satisfactory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now tell me again how a "statement of fact is not a complaint".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A statement of fact is not a complaint.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're stupid. You seem to think that a complaint must be untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope, but you seem to think a statement of fact MUST be a complaint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did you get that from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>From YOUR diatribe on the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And once again we see that Chimp Just Can't Read. YOU complained in a
>>>> public newsgroup that someone was (according to you) doing something
>>>> that "isn't RFC compliant". That's a COMPLAINT, Chimp, which is why
>>>> you ranted on and on about it to the point of killfiling the
>>>> 'offender'. Then you claimed "A statement of fact is not a
>>>> complaint." When I point out that it most certainly can be, you stand
>>>> on your head and claim I've once again said something that I never
>>>> said (that all statements of fact are complaints).
>>>>
>>>> If you didn't want everyone on the newsgroup involved, WHY DID YOU
>>>> POST YOUR COMPLAINT THERE?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why do you care so much that you keep going on about it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I think it gives great insight into how your head works (or
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't). You're the only one complaining, yet you insist that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem must be at his end. Typical of you. Jim is never wrong; it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> always the other guy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And you are the only school yard bully going on and on and on and on
>>>>>>>>>>>about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did you bring it up?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Because reading his posts were annoying, but I have solved that problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet here you are, still caterwauling about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are the one going on and on and on and on and on about something
>>>>>>>>>that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You 'solved the problem' (from your perspective, which solution is to
>>>>>>>> simply steadfastly ignore that part of reality; very like your usual
>>>>>>>> 'solution' to things). So why are you still wanking on about it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If anyone is caterwauling it is you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, Chimp. It's always someone else and never you...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are the one going on and on and on and on and on about something
>>>>>>>that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just responding to your whines in a public forum, Chimp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usenet isn't email, remember?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What does email have to do with anything, space cadet, or is that the
>>>>>only red herring you could think of at the moment?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What email has to do with anything, chimp, is that if you think what
>>>> you had to say isn't anyone's business but the gentleman you were
>>>> complaining about and you, email is the proper tool for that exchange.
>>>> Since you obviously thought it was the business of the entire cluster
>>>> of newsgroups you posted it to (because you posted it there), it's
>>>> rather stupid for you to complain about how it "has absolutely nothing
>>>> to do with [me]" now. If you believe that, YOU SHOULD HAVE SENT YOUR
>>>> COMPLAINT IN EMAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>>>>
>>>> Usenet isn't email, chimp.
>>>
>>>Says the denier every bit as wacko as the Holocaust deniers.
>>>
>>
>> You're a lying sack of shit, Jim.
>
>Racist deniers aren't worth talking to.
>
Yet here you are, lying like the sack of shit that you are.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web