No, john, when ever I type that into the browser window, it takes me to
a menue of alt. groups provided by google.

could you post a link that will work for me?



JohnH wrote:
Hey Schnautzer, were you ever able to get 'over there' and check out the
pics?




On 14 May 2006 12:56:35 -0700, wrote:

Pardon me, bt, "where" is "over there" and how do you get, "there"???



JohnH wrote:
On 14 May 2006 06:42:13 -0700, "
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
In an earlier post, Jim, you stated, "John does have a history of reneging
on promises."

That accusation was a lie.

You've not shown one promise on which I've reneged, and your stupid
accusations/mathematical wizardry failed to account for the fact that, as
Don White said, many people made their donations *before* my offer
was put on the table.

You, in a cowardly fashion, decided to cut and run from the thread in which
you made the accusations. Was it because you realized you'd opened your
mouth once too often?

I see you're now puppy-dogging Harry around the group. I'm sure he'll
provide you some motherly support.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Why don't you guys take it to email?
"So and So is a Such and Such" threads are always bad medicine.

It's over. If you get a chance, check out the 'runners and donors' picture
over there, especially the top name in the fourth column from the left.

Thanks!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On 19 May 2006 22:01:20 -0700, "Tim" wrote:

No, john, when ever I type that into the browser window, it takes me to
a menue of alt. groups provided by google.

could you post a link that will work for me?



JohnH wrote:
Hey Schnautzer, were you ever able to get 'over there' and check out the
pics?




On 14 May 2006 12:56:35 -0700, wrote:

Pardon me, bt, "where" is "over there" and how do you get, "there"???



JohnH wrote:
On 14 May 2006 06:42:13 -0700, "
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
In an earlier post, Jim, you stated, "John does have a history of reneging
on promises."

That accusation was a lie.

You've not shown one promise on which I've reneged, and your stupid
accusations/mathematical wizardry failed to account for the fact that, as
Don White said, many people made their donations *before* my offer
was put on the table.

You, in a cowardly fashion, decided to cut and run from the thread in which
you made the accusations. Was it because you realized you'd opened your
mouth once too often?

I see you're now puppy-dogging Harry around the group. I'm sure he'll
provide you some motherly support.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Why don't you guys take it to email?
"So and So is a Such and Such" threads are always bad medicine.

It's over. If you get a chance, check out the 'runners and donors' picture
over there, especially the top name in the fourth column from the left.


I have no idea how to get there using a web browser. I use Forte Agent, a
newsreader, which makes life amongst the news groups pretty easy.

Perhaps we can enlist the aid of one of the more knowledgeable members, but
I'm stumped.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Google does not include any binary NG's and I while therer are many web
sites that include NG posts, I am not aware of any web sites that
include binary.

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Google does not include any binary NG's and I while therer are many web
sites that include NG posts, I am not aware of any web sites that
include binary.

Thanks Guys:

I'll check out Forte Agent and see what happens.


Tim

Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

wrote:
Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

On 20 May 2006 11:38:29 -0700, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:


wrote:
Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

Reggie, you spoke too softly. I couldn't hear what you said.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On 20 May 2006 09:38:27 -0700, "
wrote:


Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

So if a post shows up under this header it should be disregarded because of
the header? What's wrong with the header? It's an honest, succinct header
that states a fact, not an allegation.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

JohnH,
Chuck was not commenting one way or the other about the veracity of
this or any header based upon name calling or personal attacks, he was
commenting on the damage to the NG by perpetuating name calling and
personal attacks, especially when it highlighted by using a header
where the subject is a personal battle.

On 20 May 2006 20:31:35 -0700, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH,
Chuck was not commenting one way or the other about the veracity of
this or any header based upon name calling or personal attacks, he was
commenting on the damage to the NG by perpetuating name calling and
personal attacks, especially when it highlighted by using a header
where the subject is a personal battle.

I wonder which is more damaging, the header or the acts themselves. In any
case, I don't care if the header goes the way of all good, honest headers.
Think on it, you and Chuck have kept it alive for two or three more days!
It would not be polite of me to disregard messages addressed at me.

BTW, the donations are still coming in:

http://www.active.com/donate/varace4cure/RacingforRenee

--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************