Re: Australian trip.

Uhhhh... Nuno, I don't identify myself either....but I do post with the same ID every time.
(and I've gotten blunt language from JL way back when I was a newbie )

but I've met Niall Litchfield ... does that help ;-)

Telemachus.
"Nuno Souto" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:73e20c6c.0305151704.6f39ecc4_at_posting.google.com...
> 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 Fri May 16 2003 - 04:00:02 CDT