Re: Australian trip.

charlie3101_at_hotmail.com (Charlie Edwards) wrote in message news:<217ac5a8.0305150802.2125151e_at_posting.google.com>...
> > > Hang on. We have an issue here.
> >
> > No. You, an unidentified person who has seldom if ever
> > contributed to this group, may have an "issue".
> > I and a lot of others don't. How's that for size?
> >
> This is somewhat aggressive don't you think? And how many people have
> you actually canvassed to find out whether they have an issue?

And how many people has this troll canvassed to claim "*We* have an issue here"? His words, right up there. Are you so blind you can't read them? Why do you criticize my generalization and not his, when his was done first?

> Personally, I don't have any issue, but I am not so arrogant as to
> assume that my opinion is the only valid one.

Me neither. That's why I'm still replying to you.

> > > Please, Jonathan, do you held your seminars for free or some admission needs
> > > to be payed?
> >
> > Do you sell your wares under another identification
> > or are they for free?
> >
> How irrelevant

Precisely. *Both* statements.

> Are you seriously that ignorant? Of course not, just being sarcastic,
> but not in the least bit amusing.

At least you can't call me a clown? :D

> >
> Why should they? - why do YOU decide that anonymity is so abhorrant.

Because it hides financial interests that we may not be aware of. Jonathan is identifying himself properly, so is EVERYONE else that regularly posts here. With a name and a traceable id. Even if it is bogus. Vox wasn't, neither was the OP. Therefore, I'm entitled to assume whatever I might want about those. Their choice.

> I can imagine that a damned good reason for anonymity is to avoid
> attacks such as yours.

It's certainly a VERY GOOD way of inviting them, that's for sure. You know, I've been on the Usenet for a lot longer than you: in 100% of cases like this (NO EXCEPTIONS!!!) I've found there was a competing comercial interest behind this type of troll intervention. So, I expose it for what it is.

> Oh please. Either 1) they are a lurker or 2) They've posted under
> another ID.

Which makes them a low-life troll. I remove not a single statement of what I said.

> How to miss the point by a mile

How to not have a clue.

> "Heap on"? Don't you think you're being a bit oversensitive here?

Maybe. I get that way with trolls. NO apologies either.

> was motivated by financial reasons. Can't ever recall reading "blunt
> language" from Jonathan though.

Of course that was no insinuation, then?

> What a truly unpleasant person you are. Or were you just having a bad
> day?
>

I just behave this way towards trolls.
They add nothing to the Usenet, and often cause more havoc than they deserve. Ignoring them is no option for me.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam Received on Thu May 15 2003 - 20:04:14 CDT