On 14 Mar 2006 18:01:50 -0800, "Warm Blue Glow"
wrote:

From: Keith G
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 7:11 pm
Email: "Keith G"

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

LOL! We can do this indefinitely...

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 14 Mar 2006 18:01:50 -0800, "Warm Blue Glow"
wrote:

From: Keith G
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 7:11 pm
Email: "Keith G"

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

LOL! We can do this indefinitely...

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...



That's the ticket!!

:-))

Bin 'em all, I say!!

"Warm Blue Glow" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Keith G
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 7:11 pm
Email: "Keith G"

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

LOL! We can do this indefinitely...



Not if you are dumb enough to swap your computers over after *binning*
everybody!!

Still, could always bin 'em again!! Double fun!! :-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Andre Jute
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 11:52 am
Email: "Andre Jute"

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages

Well, I also posted to the thread when it said that Pinkerton was
unreliable (started by you, it appears).

So if I apologize to you, I must then also apologize to Stewart. Since
he likes and eats haggis, I'm afraid that isn't possible. I've had
haggis and it's disgusting.

I would also point out that you, to be fair, should probably apologize
to Stewart for negatively dragging his name into a thread title, which
could also be called 'insensitive.' Goose, gander, and all.

So, even though I do not pay much attention to thread titles (like most
here, I'd imagine), since I have posted to both threads, and since I
will not apologize to a haggis-eater, I guess that means you'd better
put me in with the trailer park trash. TIA...:-)



Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...


It's a good thing we don't have to use paper.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message oups.com...
From: Andre Jute
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 11:52 am
Email: "Andre Jute"

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages

Well, I also posted to the thread when it said that Pinkerton was
unreliable (started by you, it appears).

So if I apologize to you, I must then also apologize to Stewart. Since
he likes and eats haggis, I'm afraid that isn't possible. I've had
haggis and it's disgusting.

I would also point out that you, to be fair, should probably apologize
to Stewart for negatively dragging his name into a thread title, which
could also be called 'insensitive.' Goose, gander, and all.

So, even though I do not pay much attention to thread titles (like most
here, I'd imagine), since I have posted to both threads, and since I
will not apologize to a haggis-eater, I guess that means you'd better
put me in with the trailer park trash. TIA...:-)



Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...


It's a good thing we don't have to use paper.


Yecch!! You don't use your bare hands, do you?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Andre Jute
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 11:52 am
Email: "Andre Jute"

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages

Well, I also posted to the thread when it said that Pinkerton was
unreliable (started by you, it appears).

Absolutely. But that was a reasoned, documented case.

So if I apologize to you, I must then also apologize to Stewart. Since
he likes and eats haggis, I'm afraid that isn't possible. I've had
haggis and it's disgusting.

I would also point out that you, to be fair, should probably apologize
to Stewart for negatively dragging his name into a thread title, which
could also be called 'insensitive.' Goose, gander, and all.

A reasoned, documented, proven case, made by me; I didn't just call
Pinkerton malicious, I *proved* that he is malicious.

The case with you is different. You carelessly contributed to a thread
in which I was accused of being a liar. In fact, the appearance is that
you claimed I lied on classes of liquor about which I never said a word
among other reasons because crap like that will never pass my lips.

So, even though I do not pay much attention to thread titles (like most
here, I'd imagine), since I have posted to both threads, and since I
will not apologize to a haggis-eater, I guess that means you'd better
put me in with the trailer park trash. TIA...:-)

Nah, okay, you're funny, and you're glib (and by all accounts you're
also bloody big) so I'll overlook it this time. Next time, it's your
Grand Cherokee for the chop...

Score still:
Lotuseaters 1, Haggismunchies 19

In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Andre Jute
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 11:52 am
Email: "Andre Jute"

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages

Well, I also posted to the thread when it said that Pinkerton was
unreliable (started by you, it appears).

Absolutely. But that was a reasoned, documented case.

So if I apologize to you, I must then also apologize to Stewart. Since
he likes and eats haggis, I'm afraid that isn't possible. I've had
haggis and it's disgusting.

I would also point out that you, to be fair, should probably apologize
to Stewart for negatively dragging his name into a thread title, which
could also be called 'insensitive.' Goose, gander, and all.

A reasoned, documented, proven case, made by me; I didn't just call
Pinkerton malicious, I *proved* that he is malicious.

The case with you is different. You carelessly contributed to a thread
in which I was accused of being a liar. snip

You are not thinking logically. You excuse YOUR action where you
ACTUALLY accuse a poster of bad behavior in the title of a post, but
accuse Shhhhh and me of being "insensitive" because we replied to posts
that had NOTHING to do with you at all. Think it though, my friend, and
stop looking foolish.

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Andre Jute
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 11:52 am
Email: "Andre Jute"

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages

Well, I also posted to the thread when it said that Pinkerton was
unreliable (started by you, it appears).

Absolutely. But that was a reasoned, documented case.

So if I apologize to you, I must then also apologize to Stewart. Since
he likes and eats haggis, I'm afraid that isn't possible. I've had
haggis and it's disgusting.

I would also point out that you, to be fair, should probably apologize
to Stewart for negatively dragging his name into a thread title, which
could also be called 'insensitive.' Goose, gander, and all.

A reasoned, documented, proven case, made by me; I didn't just call
Pinkerton malicious, I *proved* that he is malicious.

The case with you is different. You carelessly contributed to a thread
in which I was accused of being a liar. snip

You are not thinking logically. You excuse YOUR action where you
ACTUALLY accuse a poster of bad behavior in the title of a post, but
accuse Shhhhh and me of being "insensitive" because we replied to posts
that had NOTHING to do with you at all. Think it though, my friend, and
stop looking foolish.

I don't know who taught you logic, Jenn, but you should ask for your
tuition back. They either did a very bad job, or you are terrifyingly
stupid, or your memory of what you were taught is faulty.

I deliberately made a case about Stewart Pinkerton and proved it with
documentation. I intended maximum offense to a clown who spent fifteen
months trying to wreck a project of mine for no better reason than his
malice. The documentation proves his malice.

You carelessly signed your name *8 times* to a headline accusing me of
being a liar, apparently without knowing me. If you cannot see how
offensive that is, you and I have nothing in common. Please don't call
me "my friend"; my friends are well-mannered people and you're not.

I think that, in the absence of an instant apology, this conversation
should have been over three exchanges ago. Your behaviour before and
since is inexcusable. Goodbye.

Andre Jute

In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Andre Jute
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 11:52 am
Email: "Andre Jute"

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages

Well, I also posted to the thread when it said that Pinkerton was
unreliable (started by you, it appears).

Absolutely. But that was a reasoned, documented case.

So if I apologize to you, I must then also apologize to Stewart. Since
he likes and eats haggis, I'm afraid that isn't possible. I've had
haggis and it's disgusting.

I would also point out that you, to be fair, should probably apologize
to Stewart for negatively dragging his name into a thread title, which
could also be called 'insensitive.' Goose, gander, and all.

A reasoned, documented, proven case, made by me; I didn't just call
Pinkerton malicious, I *proved* that he is malicious.

The case with you is different. You carelessly contributed to a thread
in which I was accused of being a liar. snip

You are not thinking logically. You excuse YOUR action where you
ACTUALLY accuse a poster of bad behavior in the title of a post, but
accuse Shhhhh and me of being "insensitive" because we replied to posts
that had NOTHING to do with you at all. Think it though, my friend, and
stop looking foolish.

I don't know who taught you logic, Jenn, but you should ask for your
tuition back. They either did a very bad job, or you are terrifyingly
stupid, or your memory of what you were taught is faulty.

I deliberately made a case about Stewart Pinkerton and proved it with
documentation. I intended maximum offense to a clown who spent fifteen
months trying to wreck a project of mine for no better reason than his
malice. The documentation proves his malice.

You carelessly signed your name *8 times* to a headline accusing me of
being a liar, apparently without knowing me. If you cannot see how
offensive that is, you and I have nothing in common. Please don't call
me "my friend"; my friends are well-mannered people and you're not.

I think that, in the absence of an instant apology, this conversation
should have been over three exchanges ago. Your behaviour before and
since is inexcusable. Goodbye.

Andre Jute

That's nice hon...sleep well.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Andre Jute
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 11:52 am
Email: "Andre Jute"

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already
displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages

Well, I also posted to the thread when it said that Pinkerton was
unreliable (started by you, it appears).

Absolutely. But that was a reasoned, documented case.

So if I apologize to you, I must then also apologize to Stewart.
Since
he likes and eats haggis, I'm afraid that isn't possible. I've had
haggis and it's disgusting.

I would also point out that you, to be fair, should probably
apologize
to Stewart for negatively dragging his name into a thread title,
which
could also be called 'insensitive.' Goose, gander, and all.

A reasoned, documented, proven case, made by me; I didn't just call
Pinkerton malicious, I *proved* that he is malicious.

The case with you is different. You carelessly contributed to a thread
in which I was accused of being a liar. snip

You are not thinking logically. You excuse YOUR action where you
ACTUALLY accuse a poster of bad behavior in the title of a post, but
accuse Shhhhh and me of being "insensitive" because we replied to posts
that had NOTHING to do with you at all. Think it though, my friend, and
stop looking foolish.

I don't know who taught you logic, Jenn, but you should ask for your
tuition back. They either did a very bad job, or you are terrifyingly
stupid, or your memory of what you were taught is faulty.

I deliberately made a case about Stewart Pinkerton and proved it with
documentation. I intended maximum offense to a clown who spent fifteen
months trying to wreck a project of mine for no better reason than his
malice. The documentation proves his malice.

You carelessly signed your name *8 times* to a headline accusing me of
being a liar, apparently without knowing me. If you cannot see how
offensive that is, you and I have nothing in common. Please don't call
me "my friend"; my friends are well-mannered people and you're not.

I think that, in the absence of an instant apology, this conversation
should have been over three exchanges ago. Your behaviour before and
since is inexcusable. Goodbye.



Ooh! Have you binned him??

:-)