Frustrated with Apple Care service
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Sue Rodgers on 1 Dec 2006 23:29 dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > I have never been able to get you to see the most important issue and that > is that TBG make the insults and I react. You can continue to believe that, you can continue to say that, but archives demonstrate otherwise. I have been reading the comp.sys.mac groups daily for considerably longer than you've been posting here and I've seen the entire you vs. Dave thing play out from the beginning. You want me to believe something contrary to what actually happened. -- Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...
From: dorayme on 2 Dec 2006 00:12 In article <1hpox08.1h0uzh655lxeoN%soorod(a)bellnotnorth.invalid>, soorod(a)bellnotnorth.invalid (Sue Rodgers) wrote: > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > I have never been able to get you to see the most important issue and that > > is that TBG make the insults and I react. > > You can continue to believe that, you can continue to say that, but > archives demonstrate otherwise. I have been reading the comp.sys.mac > groups daily for considerably longer than you've been posting here and > I've seen the entire you vs. Dave thing play out from the beginning. > You want me to believe something contrary to what actually happened. Sue! You are doing it again! You are waving your hand and not showing the exact chapter and verse. If you are going to insult me, do me a favour. Spend some time in giving the real and not unfairly cut evidence. Don't be like the rest of the TBG. Be different, be fair, true and moral. It is not so hard to be at one with Truth and Beauty and Goodness. Just study me and you will see how to do it. Look Gang, whenever you want a bit of S & M, just call me up, Madam Dominatrix, to whip your sad asses. If it is what turns you on, I am happy to please. But if you don't want it, just don't call for it. Stick to Mac things. I can settle for that. It is more tiresome having to do this job for me than for your Dear Leader to read it. He does not know this, but then he is a super ignorant outside a little narrow field. I am recalling his ridiculous claim that he never has come across an 6 or 8 or 10 year old child or thereabouts who could not take out a fan housing and replace it from a Mac desktop (or some complete horse or bullshit or waffle like this). You did not notice - naturally, you only notice the bad things, never the good about me - how I never commented on this at the time? Why? Good question Sue, I am glad you asked this and I am going to tell you: BECAUSE I WAS NOT BEING PROVOKED BY HIM OR YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF TBG! THAT'S WHY! It was a quiet period and I would not be the one to raise the temperature. Of course, it could not last. Some low member of TBG would have to start up (it is in their nature, club rules, you see) and of course, it then is on for young and all. Of course, old B just now and then darts out to utter his little glib formulae. Leave it be Sue. Leave it be. -- dorayme
From: J.J. O'Shea on 2 Dec 2006 06:59 On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:41:32 -0500, patrick j wrote (in article <0001HW.C1966E2C00699262B019F94F(a)News.Individual.Net>): > James Glidewell wrote: > >> Please leave. For your own sake. And ours. > > Firstly I will write that I hope that dorayme remains participating in > the comp.sys.mac.* forums and ignores a statement such as this. Not to worry, she'll be around for some time to come. > > It is the height of arrogance to think that you have the right to > declare that someone should leave a discussion forum. > > If anyone is to leave I would hope it would be people who mistakenly > believe that it is their role to decide who should or should not > participate. > > dorayme has been treated very badly by a small group of people on this > forum and I am very glad he has not been bullied off it which has been > their intention. > > I remember the thread that is being discussed, and anyone can visit it; > it is clear to see that dorayme was ganged up on by a group of very > small minded people. > > My own feeling is that doraymes best way of dealing with it is to > kill-file the group of individuals involved, but it is dorayme's > decision as to how he should proceed. Err... m'man, quick question: was _I_ one of those who, ahem, treated the twit very badly? Second quick question: when, exactly, did I reply to her for the first time? Third quick question: did I ever post so much as one thing against her prior to this thread? Fourth, and final, quick question: prior to this thread, did I even know that the silly bint existed? Hint: if you have been reading this thread, you already know the answers to all four questions. > > I also feel that if people do not like dorayme's posts then they should > just kill-file them. To me that is obvious. I've had Hogwasher flag her posts to make sure that I don't miss even one. She's just too funny for words. > > Dorayme's writing style is different from that of the group who are > trying to "expel" him, I suspect that you have not been paying attention, 'cause if you were you'd know that he's a she. You might want to review the thread. Just a thought, now. > and I believe that it is purely for being > different that dorayme is being rounded upon in this manner. > > Personally I will not be commenting again in this thread. Oh, that's good. -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
From: Sue Rodgers on 2 Dec 2006 09:40 dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Sue! You are doing it again! You are waving your hand and not > showing the exact chapter and verse. If you are going to insult > me, do me a favour. Spend some time in giving the real and not > unfairly cut evidence. I'm sorry, but you simply do not understand what I have been saying--my point has been that you have singled out Dave as your target. It's nothing you say specifically to him, it's that it's been exclusively to him. In the thread that Mike posted, and in several others at the same time, a number of people say things that are various ways of questioning your mental acuity, yet you have eschewed responding to anyone except Dave. It's impossible to show someone the exact moment that something did not happen, so how can I or anyone else cite chapter and verse when you did not start treating anyone else as you have treated Dave? Dear, you remind me of the child who cries out, "Mommy, Timmy keeps on hitting me back!" -- Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...
From: dorayme on 2 Dec 2006 16:16
In article <021220060042542758%dave(a)N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave Balderstone <dave(a)N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote: > In article > <doraymeRidThis-FBC621.16123302122006(a)news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > Sue! You are doing it again! You are waving your hand and not > > showing the exact chapter and verse > > Exact chapter and verse? > > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.apps/browse_thread/thread/4 > b4bc3e25e59684d/28dc556b45e15878?lnk=st&q=drugs+dorayme+balderstone&rnum > =2#28dc556b45e15878> > I give an analogy to be thinking through an issue and the dobberman in you is doing the listening: "Are you drunk or on drugs?" I protest: Can you not see I am trying to think through what is actually happening? Please do not be rude to me. And then you claim, you little miserable insincere bleating wretch: "No, I didn't see that. I wasn't being rude, either. It was a sincere question, based on the content of your post." A little later, me having by now explained it was an analogy meant well, you add, to stoke the fire in your pompous manner: "And, I note, you didn't answer my question." Which just about says everything, you little prick. -- dorayme |