JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:42:14 -0500, Dan
wrote:


JohnH wrote:


On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:05:56 -0500, Dan
wrote:



basskisser wrote:



JimH wrote:



"Dan" wrote in message
.com...



JohnH wrote:




On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 19:39:44 -0500, Dan
wrote:






Give it a rest, John. Since you already know "basskisser" is the
problem, respond to him.


It takes two, Dan.
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

No, John, it takes one lunatic and a half dozen people who are trolled by
the lunatic with attacks approaching libel.

Consider your "neat guy" replies to Harry. How is that any different?

It's not.

My 'neat' replies to Harry's name-calling do not go on, and on, and on.

He calls someone an asshole, I pay him a compliment. End of thread.

I have basskisser killfiled. Responding to him is not feasible, except
through another, and I don't think agitating him is worthwhile.
--
John

If he badgered and libeled you it would continue, John - you know that.
Why not add Harry to your killfile since your policy seems to be to
remove the source, not the targets?


He badgers and libels you because you allow him to. As to the killfile,
Harry and I do not go on, and on, and on, and on, saying the same thing to
each other post after post and thread after thread and day after day and so
on.

He calls someone an asshole, I compliment him. End of thread.
--
John

You missed the mark.

Kevin is the king of the four-line response among his other catch
phrases of the week. I, and others, are able to respond appropriately
and with limited repetition.

You modify your "neat guy" response but your point is always the same.

You are welcome to do and post what you want, but don't ask the rest of
us to not do the same.

dan

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com