On Apr 25, 8:54=A0pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
te=
ll
> > >>>> you that you should stop because you are ruining SRQ you deny and
> > >>>> decline. =A0Now, 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.
>
> > >> =A0 Look Tom...I posted a response in a baptist group
> > >> =A0 without looking closely to see if the headers
> > >> =A0 had SRQ in them. When I found that it was in the header line I
de=
leted
> > >> =A0 my post. I am not posting to this group from other groups
> > >> =A0 knowingly. Kelly is the one that started doing this as she has
an=
axe
> > >> =A0 to grind and doesn't care about your feelings where I am
involved=
,
> > >> =A0 as he inclusion of SRQ in the header has proven.
>
> > >> =A0 I can control me only, and apologize for my part, unintentional
i=
t
> > >> =A0 was but neglectful nonetheless. I am not accustomed to dealing
wi=
th
> > >> such deceit and treachery from people, but will be before to long
>
> > >> =A0 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
kn=
ow
> > > 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.
>
> > =A0 =A0I 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 =A0hit "Ignore Thread" (I think =A0you 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.
Wow, Tom. I see you are really buying into Rodney's schtick.
Caveat emptor.
|
