Re: Kelly is doing this deliberately..

Tom McDonald wrote:
> Rod wrote:
>> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> "<316>" wrote:
>>>> On Apr 25, 2:56 pm, David <pchristain...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Take it somewhere else.
>>>>
>>>> You know, David - I find it really interesting that when SRQ'ers tell
>>>> you that you should stop because you are ruining SRQ you deny and
>>>> decline.  Now, you are making the same complaint that others have
made
>>>> about you.
>>>>
>>>> When you refuse to stop posting off-topic in SRQ, why should anyone
>>>> listen to you?
>>>
>>> How about if I say it?
>>>
>>> You can take it from me that I agree with David about nearly nothing; 
>>> and I agree with you that this is a bit rich coming from him.
>>>
>>> But I agree with him about this. You and Rod are causing unnecessary 
>>> crap in a newsgroup that really, really doesn't need it -- and whose 
>>> denizens are generally going to be too polite to tell you to go away.
>>>
>>> Why not take it somewhere else? It is clear that this animosity 
>>> didn't start here, and your continuing fight is only a drive-by 
>>> tra****ng of an innocent ng.
>>
>>
>>   Look Tom...I posted a response in a baptist group
>>   without looking closely to see if the headers
>>   had SRQ in them. When I found that it was in the header line I
deleted
>>   my post. I am not posting to this group from other groups
>>   knowingly. Kelly is the one that started doing this as she has an axe
>>   to grind and doesn't care about your feelings where I am involved,
>>   as he inclusion of SRQ in the header has proven.
>>
>>   I can control me only, and apologize for my part, unintentional it
>>   was but neglectful nonetheless. I am not accustomed to dealing with 
>> such deceit and treachery from people, but will be before to long
>>
>>   Again. my apologies..
> 
> Appreciated--although I'm not an SRQ regular, but rather an occasional 
> looker-in.
> 
> I find myself wondering whether the best course is to ignore her. I know

> how hard this can be, especially with a professional prick (and yes, 
> women can be pricks) enticing one into replying by playing mind games. 
> But it can be done, and can result in a much happier life.
> 
> I know from personal experience.

   I agree. I have her filtered, though i do see her posts by way of 
replies to her from others. I haven't figured out how to filter that
yet without filtering out others that i like speaking with.

   Rod

-- 

To quote Jerry Moon;


Spelling mistakes above left in for people who need to correct
others to make their life fulfilled.


Copyright protected
Permission granted to copy for replies in News Groups
Jerry Moon