On Apr 25, 9:55 pm, Rod <icom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
I see you use Thunderbird -- which I use as my main newsreader. When I
killfile someone (which I very seldom do, unless I've really gotten
hooked a bad pattern with someone--if someone is just a jerk or a
waste of time, I mostly just ignore them), I have to decide whether a
thread in which the killfilee is posting is interesting to me.
If it is interesting, I discipline myself to ignore anything written
by the dead-to-me, -at-least-for-a-while person, and reply only to the
other folks. I need to be careful not to reply at second-hand, or
refer to the person in my reply to someone else, if for no other
reason than that that's unfair to the killfilee, and cowardly or
snotty of me. (Though I sometimes do so anyway, to my shame.)
If a thread is too entwined with the person of lack-of-interest, I
just hit "Ignore Thread" (I think you can also do it with "Ctrl -
K"), and I don't see anything of the thread again.
Usually, it is possible to converse with folks I like on other
threads. Few threads are really so vital that I just *have* to read
them, if they are infested.
|
