What Broke?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Dorian Gray on 11 Jan 2010 07:50 In article <1jc5ek1.5t4qjd1nrqshrN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > I'll have you know that normal decent sensible people are > > > > Not named Rowland McDonnell. > > On this occasion, Rowland had nothing angry or harsh to say about > anyone. You're being destructive and trying to provoke trouble; I guess > you must like the result. > > Daniele Daniele, Could you please take your own advice, and ignore it? Every time someone responds to Rowland, you tell them to ignore them. But you're adding to the noise. Could you please ignore those you would like to ignore Rowland, from now on? My filter is not recursive. Also, I won't ask you to ignore the people you are asking to ignore Rowland, from now on. Please don't reply to this post. :)
From: D.M. Procida on 11 Jan 2010 08:35 Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: > In article > <1jc5ek1.5t4qjd1nrqshrN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > > On this occasion, Rowland had nothing angry or harsh to say about > > anyone. You're being destructive and trying to provoke trouble; I guess > > you must like the result. > Could you please take your own advice, and ignore it? Every time > someone responds to Rowland, you tell them to ignore them. But you're > adding to the noise. Could you please ignore those you would like to > ignore Rowland, from now on? My filter is not recursive. Also, I won't > ask you to ignore the people you are asking to ignore Rowland, from now > on. > > Please don't reply to this post. :) I'm going out of my way to ignore you. Actually, you're right - there is no point in saying things that are already clearly obvious to some people, and will be vociferously denied by others, as it's not going to make much difference to either. So I'll leave it. Daniele
From: Pd on 11 Jan 2010 09:43 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: > > > In article > > <1jc5ek1.5t4qjd1nrqshrN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > > > > On this occasion, Rowland had nothing angry or harsh to say about > > > anyone. You're being destructive and trying to provoke trouble; I guess > > > you must like the result. > > > Could you please take your own advice, and ignore it? Every time > > someone responds to Rowland, you tell them to ignore them. But you're > > adding to the noise. Could you please ignore those you would like to > > ignore Rowland, from now on? My filter is not recursive. Also, I won't > > ask you to ignore the people you are asking to ignore Rowland, from now > > on. > > > > Please don't reply to this post. :) > > I'm going out of my way to ignore you. Please don't respond to the people asking you not to respond to the people you're asking not to respond to the people who didn't need the kind of response that just creates a situation where there wasn't one. And since nobody sponded in the first place, there's no need to respond. -- Pd
From: James Jolley on 11 Jan 2010 09:48 On 2010-01-11 14:43:15 +0000, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) said: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > >> Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In article >>> <1jc5ek1.5t4qjd1nrqshrN%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, >>> real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: >> >>>> On this occasion, Rowland had nothing angry or harsh to say about >>>> anyone. You're being destructive and trying to provoke trouble; I guess >>>> you must like the result. >> >>> Could you please take your own advice, and ignore it? Every time >>> someone responds to Rowland, you tell them to ignore them. But you're >>> adding to the noise. Could you please ignore those you would like to >>> ignore Rowland, from now on? My filter is not recursive. Also, I won't >>> ask you to ignore the people you are asking to ignore Rowland, from now >>> on. >>> >>> Please don't reply to this post. :) >> >> I'm going out of my way to ignore you. > > Please don't respond to the people asking you not to respond to the > people you're asking not to respond to the people who didn't need the > kind of response that just creates a situation where there wasn't one. > And since nobody sponded in the first place, there's no need to respond. Well, we have a successor to Douglas Adams at least. I had to read that one a couple of times. Best -JAmes-
From: David Kennedy on 11 Jan 2010 15:11
Steve Firth wrote: Lots of stuff. Please you guys, give the rest of us a break? -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |