Old Nick wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:53:54 GMT, Brian Whatcott
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

I picked up on this note. The tone was ugly. So I looked back on the
thread to see how Marcel had transgressed.
I didn't see it. So it looks kinda irrational.
Can someone explain please?

Easy. I get sick of people who come here and ask questions (and the
question was minimally asked) and then can't be bothered to show an
interest in the efrfort people put into replying.

That in no way justifies making unfounded assumptions and posting such
as ****y reply. How can you possibly know his intentions or actions? You
can't, but you spouted off anyway. That's a great way to make people
feel welcome, isn't it? It's not like you've been a big contributor to
this discussion, either.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:43:25 GMT, Brian Nystrom
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

What unfounded assumptions? What does it natter what their intentions
were? There _actions_ were that they asked for information, have had a
lot of effort to supply it, and have not bothered to come back.

I am not sure I _want_ to make people like that welcome. If they can't
be bothered to come back to their own posts then good riddance. I
admit my post was ****y. That is all I will admit. I have posted
messages with similar intent buy softer content in the past.

I have not contributed much to this thread, I agree. I am no "expert"
on the subject. I did comment on what I did know. I have contributed
quite a bit in the past, whether it was "welcome" or not. What I have
had to say is as good as a lot of what I read here. Read that how you
like.

That in no way justifies making unfounded assumptions and posting such
as ****y reply. How can you possibly know his intentions or actions? You
can't, but you spouted off anyway. That's a great way to make people
feel welcome, isn't it? It's not like you've been a big contributor to
this discussion, either.

************************************************** ** sorry

..........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Does Bill Gates dream of electronic sheep?

Old Nick wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:43:25 GMT, Brian Nystrom
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

What unfounded assumptions? What does it natter what their intentions
were? There _actions_ were that they asked for information, have had a
lot of effort to supply it, and have not bothered to come back.

I am not sure I _want_ to make people like that welcome. If they can't
be bothered to come back to their own posts then good riddance. I
admit my post was ****y. That is all I will admit. I have posted
messages with similar intent buy softer content in the past.

You're assuming that he hasn't been back to check the thread. You're
assuming that it's intentional on his part. You're assuming that he's
not grateful for the suggestions.

Perhaps the guy's been away for a few days and unable to check the
newsgroup? Would you still feel justified in bitching at him for being
ungrateful?

You haven't been supplying any information, so why do you even care? You
got your panties all in a wad over nothing and decided to insult the guy
without cause. What's really eating you? I doubt that it's anything to
do with this thread.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:56:40 GMT, Brian Nystrom
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You're assuming that he hasn't been back to check the thread. You're
assuming that it's intentional on his part. You're assuming that he's
not grateful for the suggestions.

OK. I waited. I waited because you were so damned determined to judge
my appraisal of the OP's motoves.......and I reckon by now I am right.
The guy is a wasterel.

So how long do you want to give the little %$#* Eh!

I am still sick of prats who cannot be bothered to follow up their own
posts. TROLL rings a bell. LAZY comes next.

I am NOT assuming that "he" is not grateful. I reckon that if "he" is,
then we should all hear about it. A lot of effort has been put into
replying. A simple "thank you" is the least.....

OK?
************************************************** ** sorry

..........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Does Bill Gates dream of electronic sheep?