From: James Jolley on
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
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
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
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
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