From: James Jolley on 1 Jul 2010 16:18 On 2010-07-01 17:34:47 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > bella jonez <bellajonez(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Again, I'm just baffled at the outbursts of nastiness. It's not just >> Rowland. > > All these people are just being true to themselves. Sadly. If being true to yourself is allowing yourself to be walked over then that is indeed sad. All the armchair psychology in the world can't stop that. Just because many here think Rowland is acceptable and it is perfectly fine to take it, doesn't me we all should.
From: Jim on 1 Jul 2010 16:19 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > It could happen if we ditch the usenet group and go to forums. That way > we could get rid of Rowland and he couldn't keep telling us how much of > a technical group it is and how he created it. The usual stuff really. We could effectively get rid of Rowland by using our killfiles and self control a bit more - and I'm speaking as a serial offender here. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: D.M. Procida on 1 Jul 2010 16:47 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > > > It could happen if we ditch the usenet group and go to forums. That way > > we could get rid of Rowland and he couldn't keep telling us how much of > > a technical group it is and how he created it. The usual stuff really. > > We could effectively get rid of Rowland by using our killfiles and self > control a bit more - and I'm speaking as a serial offender here. There is plenty of rudeness and confrontation that I'd like to see the back of, but I don't think much of the idea of "getting rid of" Rowland or anybody else. And I don't care for the idea of being a member of a group that wanted to do that. Daniele
From: John DoH on 1 Jul 2010 17:34 In article <894bgfFijfU2(a)mid.individual.net>, James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-01 17:34:47 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > > > bella jonez <bellajonez(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Again, I'm just baffled at the outbursts of nastiness. It's not just > >> Rowland. > > > > All these people are just being true to themselves. Sadly. > > If being true to yourself is allowing yourself to be walked over then > that is indeed sad. All the armchair psychology in the world can't stop > that. Just because many here think Rowland is acceptable and it is > perfectly fine to take it, doesn't me we all should. James, you can't see the wood for the trees. Beaky is one of the worst offenders when it comes to winding Rowland up. -- "Telling someone to kill themselves is not harmful: it's merely me expressing an opinion. You try to drive people to suicide - that's evil. My behaviour is perfectly okay; your behaviour is evil - plain and simple evil." Rowland McDonnell - 9th. Mar. 2009
From: John DoH on 1 Jul 2010 17:39
In article <1jkyz5g.1wc3t4lzvd9wwN%jim(a)magrathea.plus.com>, jim(a)magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > > > It could happen if we ditch the usenet group and go to forums. That way > > we could get rid of Rowland and he couldn't keep telling us how much of > > a technical group it is and how he created it. The usual stuff really. > > We could effectively get rid of Rowland by using our killfiles and self > control a bit more - and I'm speaking as a serial offender here. > > Jim So you think that admitting you are a hypocrite absolves you from the part you have played and legitimises your opinion of how to get rid of Rowland? Nice try, but you lose yet again. -- "Telling someone to kill themselves is not harmful: it's merely me expressing an opinion. You try to drive people to suicide - that's evil. My behaviour is perfectly okay; your behaviour is evil - plain and simple evil." Rowland McDonnell - 9th. Mar. 2009 |