Thieving posties
in [UK Mac]
|
From: John DoH on 25 Jun 2010 17:09 In article <1jknwm4.1xf5sx8u1sylyN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > all these personal remarks from you > > *What* personal remarks? > > You made an incorrect statement, and since it was pointed out, ahve > tried to wriggle out of admitting you made it. > > That's all. Oh, dear, Rowland will now or very soon, say you are not worth conversing with. You have cut off any retreat for Rowland so he will resort to his losing tactic. -- "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: The Older Gentleman on 25 Jun 2010 17:13 John DoH <johndoh__(a)hotmail.com.invalid> wrote: > Oh, dear, Rowland will now or very soon, say you are not worth > conversing with. I must say I'm amazed at the number of people who are supposedly in his killfile, and yet with whom he argues. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: John DoH on 25 Jun 2010 17:24 In article <1jknxq7.1itvu0k1ch3fuoN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > John DoH <johndoh__(a)hotmail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Oh, dear, Rowland will now or very soon, say you are not worth > > conversing with. > > I must say I'm amazed at the number of people who are supposedly in his > killfile, and yet with whom he argues. Rowland has a very fluid killfile, he holds all that fluid in with a colander. I even went to the trouble of teaching Rowland how to use MacSoups Killfile so that he wasn't bothered with followups to the people he allegedly had killfiled. In short, Rowland does not killfile, he would not be able to function as poorly as he does if he missed something:-) -- "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: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 18:46 The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > all these personal remarks from you > > *What* personal remarks? > > You made an incorrect statement, and since it was pointed out, ahve > tried to wriggle out of admitting you made it. > > That's all. Same pattern of behaviour again - amazing! You're a fascinating study - sticking to your fantasy regardless of the evidence. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 18:46
Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > After all, would you trust anyone with your confidential data? > > > > > > I've covered that specific point in my post; I don't have any > > > 'confidential" data. I have data, but it's not confidential. > > > > <shrug> I don't think that can be true. > > I think the truth of the statement in question is for Peter to assert, > not you. Yes, but you see, Peter's assertions cannot be trusted. I have to guess, based on my personal gambling algorithm, and it came up with the answer above. > > > > What concerns me is that you characterize my behaviour as `increasing > > > > paranoia about meaningless `security'' > > > > > > Precisely. > > > > Precisely what? You really are rather baffling at times, Peter. > > I imagine he means you're burbling with "increasing paranoia about > meaningless 'security'". But I'm not doing so in any way at all. I think Peter's characterisation of me is gratuitously insulting. > > And while I'm at it: why can't you have a normal decent conversation > > without getting abusive towards me? > > And just where did he do that, pray tell? Since you don't think it's insulting to call someone paranoid, I think we can dispense with considering your judgement on such matters. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |