Argh, another amensty program brewing
Dec 11th 2003, 7:13 am
#31
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 129
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Richard III
Actually, he does it purposely. I asked him to turn it off a couple of weeks ago and he pretty much told me to buzz off (actually, he wasn't quite that polite). He takes pride in being obnoxious.
Richard III
Actually, he does it purposely. I asked him to turn it off a couple of weeks ago and he pretty much told me to buzz off (actually, he wasn't quite that polite). He takes pride in being obnoxious.
Richard III
but, i'm rather blunt myself
Dec 11th 2003, 7:16 am
#32
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by cmstrick
not that anyone cares, but i think deforia is great!
not that anyone cares, but i think deforia is great!
Dec 11th 2003, 7:22 am
#33
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by cmstrick
not that anyone cares, but i think deforia is great! makes one think, doesn't read <i>into</i> comments....just reads them and gives his honest opinion
but, i'm rather blunt myself
not that anyone cares, but i think deforia is great! makes one think, doesn't read <i>into</i> comments....just reads them and gives his honest opinion
but, i'm rather blunt myself
Andrew can be interesting at times. However, besides often being impossible to read due to intermittent formating problems unique to his posts, they are often self-contradictory.
Recently he charactarized a brief "no" from me in direct response to his "yes/no" question as being "elusive" followed later by an expression of a desire that when he asks a question, he expects an answer.
However, I will admit to a fondenss to the statement of Ralph Waldo Emerson that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I will say that Andrew does have a GREAT mind.
Dec 11th 2003, 7:39 am
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Leslie66 wrote:
> I never claimed to know anything about the internet or immigration.
Then don't come to the internet and ask about immigration related
issues! ;-)
Seriously though, you need not get your panties in a bunch just because
you're clueless and when you ask a question and somebody answers you
plainly you need not call that person rude where there was no rudeness
intended nor present. But since you decided to respond harshly because
of the chip on your shoulder you should not be surprised when people
respond back in kind. This has nothing to do with the internet nor
immigration.
> I also don't find it necessary to brag about the things that I do have
> expertise in.
Nor do I (nor did I). You were the one that started this round of
foolishness by rudely criticising my statement as being rude when it
wasn't. Ah I see you snipped that part out - how convenient!
> You are boring.
Yeah and you're stupid. I can more more exciting in a second but it'll
take years to overcome your stupidity.
--
Why do croutons come in airtight packages? It's just stale bread to
begin with.
> I never claimed to know anything about the internet or immigration.
Then don't come to the internet and ask about immigration related
issues! ;-)
Seriously though, you need not get your panties in a bunch just because
you're clueless and when you ask a question and somebody answers you
plainly you need not call that person rude where there was no rudeness
intended nor present. But since you decided to respond harshly because
of the chip on your shoulder you should not be surprised when people
respond back in kind. This has nothing to do with the internet nor
immigration.
> I also don't find it necessary to brag about the things that I do have
> expertise in.
Nor do I (nor did I). You were the one that started this round of
foolishness by rudely criticising my statement as being rude when it
wasn't. Ah I see you snipped that part out - how convenient!
> You are boring.
Yeah and you're stupid. I can more more exciting in a second but it'll
take years to overcome your stupidity.
--
Why do croutons come in airtight packages? It's just stale bread to
begin with.
Dec 11th 2003, 7:59 am
#35
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,468
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Leslie66
My husband will be adjusting status while he's in the US. Don't K1 adjust status while in the US?
My husband will be adjusting status while he's in the US. Don't K1 adjust status while in the US?
You missed my point, Leslie. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. :-(
Anmesty is for illegal aliens. Your husband, when he gets here, will be here legally.
Rete
Dec 11th 2003, 8:10 am
#36
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote:
> I never claimed to know anything about the internet or immigration.
Then don't come to the internet and ask about immigration related
issues! ;-)
Seriously though, you need not get your panties in a bunch just because
you're clueless and when you ask a question and somebody answers you
plainly you need not call that person rude where there was no rudeness
intended nor present. But since you decided to respond harshly because
of the chip on your shoulder you should not be surprised when people
respond back in kind. This has nothing to do with the internet nor
immigration.
> I also don't find it necessary to brag about the things that I do have
> expertise in.
Nor do I (nor did I). You were the one that started this round of
foolishness by rudely criticising my statement as being rude when it
wasn't. Ah I see you snipped that part out - how convenient!
> You are boring.
Yeah and you're stupid. I can more more exciting in a second but it'll
take years to overcome your stupidity.
--
Why do croutons come in airtight packages? It's just stale bread to
begin with.
Leslie66 wrote:
> I never claimed to know anything about the internet or immigration.
Then don't come to the internet and ask about immigration related
issues! ;-)
Seriously though, you need not get your panties in a bunch just because
you're clueless and when you ask a question and somebody answers you
plainly you need not call that person rude where there was no rudeness
intended nor present. But since you decided to respond harshly because
of the chip on your shoulder you should not be surprised when people
respond back in kind. This has nothing to do with the internet nor
immigration.
> I also don't find it necessary to brag about the things that I do have
> expertise in.
Nor do I (nor did I). You were the one that started this round of
foolishness by rudely criticising my statement as being rude when it
wasn't. Ah I see you snipped that part out - how convenient!
> You are boring.
Yeah and you're stupid. I can more more exciting in a second but it'll
take years to overcome your stupidity.
--
Why do croutons come in airtight packages? It's just stale bread to
begin with.
You were being deliberately rude. Why are you pretending you weren't?
I had to snip it because you were deliberately spamming it.
Now your just being mean and abusive. I'm out of this thread.
Dec 11th 2003, 8:11 am
#37
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Rete
You missed my point, Leslie. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. :-(
Anmesty is for illegal aliens. Your husband, when he gets here, will be here legally.
Rete
You missed my point, Leslie. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. :-(
Anmesty is for illegal aliens. Your husband, when he gets here, will be here legally.
Rete
Leslie
Dec 11th 2003, 8:13 am
#38
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Richard III
Actually, he does it purposely. I asked him to turn it off a couple of weeks ago and he pretty much told me to buzz off (actually, he wasn't quite that polite).
Actually, he does it purposely. I asked him to turn it off a couple of weeks ago and he pretty much told me to buzz off (actually, he wasn't quite that polite).
With his html formatted posts, it is very difficult to determine what part is a quote from the prior post and which part is Andrew’s new reply. Sure, I could spend two or three times as long figuring this out, but lately I just pass over Andrew’s postings containing html.
Dec 11th 2003, 8:27 am
#39
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Andrew,
Interesting - I thought the internet was a place where those who don't know could come and ask....
Regards, JEff
Interesting - I thought the internet was a place where those who don't know could come and ask....
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote:
> I never claimed to know anything about the internet or immigration.
Then don't come to the internet and ask about immigration related issues! ;-)
Leslie66 wrote:
> I never claimed to know anything about the internet or immigration.
Then don't come to the internet and ask about immigration related issues! ;-)
Dec 11th 2003, 8:55 am
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Folinskyinla wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Originally
posted by cmstrick <br>
<blockquote type="cite">not that anyone cares, but i think deforia is
great! makes one think, doesn't read <i>into</i>
comments....just reads them and gives his honest opinion but, i'm
rather blunt myself</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Thanks cmstrick. I'm convinced that most people are so used to and into
reading into other's comments what they can to grind their own axes and
give half truths, half answers and what I'd call "read the body
language (especially considering the medium we are in) for clues to the
real answer" that they have difficulties with people who are blunt,
direct and to the point. I mean "why go directly to the point when you
can beat around the bush" they must think. I, and apparently you,
however have a different viewpoint: "why beat around the bush when you
can go directly to the point". Wastes less of my time and IMHO, gets
the juicy stuff quicker. As I have been fond of saying here YMMV.<br>
<br>
(And while I appreciate the compliment just a nit to pick - it's
DeFaria not deforia <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span>)<br>
<br>
Wonder why I haven't seen cmstrick's post show up in Usenet? Could it
be that he posts to BritishExpats only? I don't know if one can do this
with BritishExpats as I'm neither British nor an Expat nor do I use
BritishExpats. <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
Andrew can be interesting at times. However, besides often being
impossible to read due to intermittent formating problems </blockquote>
Let's be clear. The formatting is fine! It's your reader that has the
problems.<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">unique
to his posts, they are often self-contradictory.<br>
</blockquote>
Huh? Talk about self-contradictory! If my posts are hard to read due to
deffiencies in your reader of choice how the hell does that make the
context of my posts self-contradictory?!? That itself is
self-contradictory!<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Recently
he charactarized a brief "no" from me in direct response to his
"yes/no" question as being "elusive" followed later by an expression of
a desire that when he asks a question, he expects an answer.<br>
</blockquote>
Let's look back at the little question you are still eluding...
Essentially it was this: You said that you often like marriage fraud
cases because you tend to win them. I asked a simple question.
Essentially a marriage fraud case consists of two sides, one side
saying that fraud occurred and the other side saying that it didn't. If
you are on the "fraud occurred" side and win then one would say you are
proving that fraud occurred. If you are on the "fraud did not occur"
side and win then one would say you are proving that fraud did not
occur. Pretty darn simple eh?<br>
<br>
So I asked an either/or question <br>
<blockquote>When you say you "win" which direction is the "win" -
proving fraud or disproving it?<br>
</blockquote>
You're response was:<br>
<blockquote>I was thinking about DEFENSE of marriage fraud chages -- so
its<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>neither.</blockquote>
Well if you didn't prove it or disprove it then what they hell did you
do?!? Not doubt you'll say when you're defending somebody you do not
have the burden to disprove it but everybody else knows and thinks that
disproving the charges is what really goes on anyway. Now you could
have said something like "The marriage fraud cases that I have done
were to defend the immigrant against the USC's accusation of marriage
fraud. There is no disproving to be done, the burden of prove is on the
USCIS" and be clear to all who read the response and quite frankly that
is your usual and customary style of responding with the side effect of
educating people. So it struck me kind of odd that your choose this
seemingly terse and round about way of answering my direct question. It
even felt as if you wanted me to further query what you meant since the
real answer appears to be still hanging with the answer of "neither" to
an either/or question. One naturally tends to think if it is neither
then what exactly is it?<br>
<br>
So I asked again for further clarification:<br>
<blockquote>Why is it that lawyers never seem to give a straight
answer? If you<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>talking "about
DEFENSE of marriage fraud chages[sic]" then does that<span
class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>mean your client is accused of
marriage fraud and you are therefore<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>trying
to disprove, if I may use that term, that fraud has<span
class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>occurred?<br>
</blockquote>
A response of "no" to this question is just further eluding the answer.
I would think that if you have trouble with the term I chose,
"disprove", then you would have answered with something like the above
but instead you chose to respond with a simple one word answer, "no",
which, to me, is elusive. I have no idea what is motivating you to
continue to elude the question but I give up trying to pull an answer
out of you.<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">However,
I will admit to a fondenss to the statement of Ralph Waldo Emerson that
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I will say
that Andrew does have a GREAT mind.<br>
</blockquote>
The key term in Mr. Emerson's statement is the word "foolish". There
are many, many, many consistencies which are not only not foolish but
required. And I am not foolishly consistent.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<-------- The information went data way --------><br>
</body>
</html>
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Folinskyinla wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Originally
posted by cmstrick <br>
<blockquote type="cite">not that anyone cares, but i think deforia is
great! makes one think, doesn't read <i>into</i>
comments....just reads them and gives his honest opinion but, i'm
rather blunt myself</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Thanks cmstrick. I'm convinced that most people are so used to and into
reading into other's comments what they can to grind their own axes and
give half truths, half answers and what I'd call "read the body
language (especially considering the medium we are in) for clues to the
real answer" that they have difficulties with people who are blunt,
direct and to the point. I mean "why go directly to the point when you
can beat around the bush" they must think. I, and apparently you,
however have a different viewpoint: "why beat around the bush when you
can go directly to the point". Wastes less of my time and IMHO, gets
the juicy stuff quicker. As I have been fond of saying here YMMV.<br>
<br>
(And while I appreciate the compliment just a nit to pick - it's
DeFaria not deforia <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span>)<br>
<br>
Wonder why I haven't seen cmstrick's post show up in Usenet? Could it
be that he posts to BritishExpats only? I don't know if one can do this
with BritishExpats as I'm neither British nor an Expat nor do I use
BritishExpats. <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
Andrew can be interesting at times. However, besides often being
impossible to read due to intermittent formating problems </blockquote>
Let's be clear. The formatting is fine! It's your reader that has the
problems.<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">unique
to his posts, they are often self-contradictory.<br>
</blockquote>
Huh? Talk about self-contradictory! If my posts are hard to read due to
deffiencies in your reader of choice how the hell does that make the
context of my posts self-contradictory?!? That itself is
self-contradictory!<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Recently
he charactarized a brief "no" from me in direct response to his
"yes/no" question as being "elusive" followed later by an expression of
a desire that when he asks a question, he expects an answer.<br>
</blockquote>
Let's look back at the little question you are still eluding...
Essentially it was this: You said that you often like marriage fraud
cases because you tend to win them. I asked a simple question.
Essentially a marriage fraud case consists of two sides, one side
saying that fraud occurred and the other side saying that it didn't. If
you are on the "fraud occurred" side and win then one would say you are
proving that fraud occurred. If you are on the "fraud did not occur"
side and win then one would say you are proving that fraud did not
occur. Pretty darn simple eh?<br>
<br>
So I asked an either/or question <br>
<blockquote>When you say you "win" which direction is the "win" -
proving fraud or disproving it?<br>
</blockquote>
You're response was:<br>
<blockquote>I was thinking about DEFENSE of marriage fraud chages -- so
its<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>neither.</blockquote>
Well if you didn't prove it or disprove it then what they hell did you
do?!? Not doubt you'll say when you're defending somebody you do not
have the burden to disprove it but everybody else knows and thinks that
disproving the charges is what really goes on anyway. Now you could
have said something like "The marriage fraud cases that I have done
were to defend the immigrant against the USC's accusation of marriage
fraud. There is no disproving to be done, the burden of prove is on the
USCIS" and be clear to all who read the response and quite frankly that
is your usual and customary style of responding with the side effect of
educating people. So it struck me kind of odd that your choose this
seemingly terse and round about way of answering my direct question. It
even felt as if you wanted me to further query what you meant since the
real answer appears to be still hanging with the answer of "neither" to
an either/or question. One naturally tends to think if it is neither
then what exactly is it?<br>
<br>
So I asked again for further clarification:<br>
<blockquote>Why is it that lawyers never seem to give a straight
answer? If you<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>talking "about
DEFENSE of marriage fraud chages[sic]" then does that<span
class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>mean your client is accused of
marriage fraud and you are therefore<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>trying
to disprove, if I may use that term, that fraud has<span
class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>occurred?<br>
</blockquote>
A response of "no" to this question is just further eluding the answer.
I would think that if you have trouble with the term I chose,
"disprove", then you would have answered with something like the above
but instead you chose to respond with a simple one word answer, "no",
which, to me, is elusive. I have no idea what is motivating you to
continue to elude the question but I give up trying to pull an answer
out of you.<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">However,
I will admit to a fondenss to the statement of Ralph Waldo Emerson that
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I will say
that Andrew does have a GREAT mind.<br>
</blockquote>
The key term in Mr. Emerson's statement is the word "foolish". There
are many, many, many consistencies which are not only not foolish but
required. And I am not foolishly consistent.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<-------- The information went data way --------><br>
</body>
</html>
Dec 11th 2003, 9:03 am
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Matthew Udall wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Originally
posted by Richard III <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Actually, he does it purposely. I asked him
to turn it off a couple of weeks ago and he pretty much told me to buzz
off (actually, he wasn't quite that polite). <br>
</blockquote>
<!---->I’ve noticed that some of his postings appear as normal, while
some don’t (and have all the html clutter in them).<br>
</blockquote>
The reasons for this have already been explained. What hasn't been
explain is why BritishExpats can't be taught to handle HTML properly!
After all it is a web site and you're currently in a browser capable of
rendering HTML!<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">With
his html formatted posts, it is very difficult to determine what part
is a quote from the prior post and which part is Andrew’s new reply.
Sure, I could spend two or three times as long figuring this out, but
lately I just pass over Andrew’s postings containing html.<br>
</blockquote>
I have difficulties discerning some quoting/posting things from (I
guess) BritishExpats too. <br>
<br>
-- <br>
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.<br>
</body>
</html>
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Matthew Udall wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Originally
posted by Richard III <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Actually, he does it purposely. I asked him
to turn it off a couple of weeks ago and he pretty much told me to buzz
off (actually, he wasn't quite that polite). <br>
</blockquote>
<!---->I’ve noticed that some of his postings appear as normal, while
some don’t (and have all the html clutter in them).<br>
</blockquote>
The reasons for this have already been explained. What hasn't been
explain is why BritishExpats can't be taught to handle HTML properly!
After all it is a web site and you're currently in a browser capable of
rendering HTML!<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">With
his html formatted posts, it is very difficult to determine what part
is a quote from the prior post and which part is Andrew’s new reply.
Sure, I could spend two or three times as long figuring this out, but
lately I just pass over Andrew’s postings containing html.<br>
</blockquote>
I have difficulties discerning some quoting/posting things from (I
guess) BritishExpats too. <br>
<br>
-- <br>
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.<br>
</body>
</html>
Dec 11th 2003, 9:07 am
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
jeffreyhy wrote:
> Andrew,
> Interesting - I thought the internet was a place where those who don't
> know could come and ask....
You were wrong! :-)
(Just kidding. People who have been on the Internet for a while really
don't mind newbies coming around and asking questions. It's just when
such newbies start thinking that they know better and doing things like
blaming others for "spamming" when the real problem is quite different
that we get upset. Besides my comment about not coming to the Internet
and asking immigration questions was A JOKE!).
--
Access denied--nah nah na nah nah!
> Andrew,
> Interesting - I thought the internet was a place where those who don't
> know could come and ask....
You were wrong! :-)
(Just kidding. People who have been on the Internet for a while really
don't mind newbies coming around and asking questions. It's just when
such newbies start thinking that they know better and doing things like
blaming others for "spamming" when the real problem is quite different
that we get upset. Besides my comment about not coming to the Internet
and asking immigration questions was A JOKE!).
--
Access denied--nah nah na nah nah!
Dec 11th 2003, 9:37 am
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Andrew can be interesting at times. However, besides often being impossible to read due to intermittent formating problems unique to his posts, they are often self-contradictory.
I will say that Andrew does have a GREAT mind.
Hi:
Andrew can be interesting at times. However, besides often being impossible to read due to intermittent formating problems unique to his posts, they are often self-contradictory.
I will say that Andrew does have a GREAT mind.
Interesting!
I proposed this question to Andy not long ago.
"Like we didn't have a MORAL/legal obligation to pass "civil rights" legislation prohibiting the practices of JIM CROW?"
Andy's respose was simply this; "NO WE DIDN'T."
We all know racism is wrong.... and because of our "Moral" sense of "duty" the laws governing "Jim Crow" were struck down because it is not only immoral but also illegal to discriminate based on race, religion or gender................ Andy seems to have displayed his "neanderthal mind" on that one.. No?
In Andy's world of "illegal" immigration, life is cut and dry, kick um' out, deport um', I guess shoot them as they cross the border.................. a GREAT MIND....? Hitler had a great mind to?
Last edited by David9287; Dec 11th 2003 at 9:42 am.
Dec 11th 2003, 10:48 am
#44
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Taking the easy way out, eh, Matt? Me too, I can only suffer so much more brain damage, at my advanced ;^) age, and still be able to function sorta normally. It's just not worth it.
Richard III
Richard III
Originally posted by Matthew Udall
I’ve noticed that some of his postings appear as normal, while some don’t (and have all the html clutter in them).
With his html formatted posts, it is very difficult to determine what part is a quote from the prior post and which part is Andrew’s new reply. Sure, I could spend two or three times as long figuring this out, but lately I just pass over Andrew’s postings containing html.
I’ve noticed that some of his postings appear as normal, while some don’t (and have all the html clutter in them).
With his html formatted posts, it is very difficult to determine what part is a quote from the prior post and which part is Andrew’s new reply. Sure, I could spend two or three times as long figuring this out, but lately I just pass over Andrew’s postings containing html.
Dec 11th 2003, 11:23 am
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Leslie66 wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">You
were being deliberately rude. Why are you pretending you weren't?<br>
</blockquote>
No I <b>wasn't</b> being deliberately rude at all <b>until</b> you
lashed out at me. Now I'm being deliberately rude. Apparently you can't
tell the difference.<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">I
had to snip it because you were deliberately spamming it.<br>
</blockquote>
For the last time - it ain't spam! (Geeze if you just keep showing your
ignorance in this people will think it's just stupidity. I'm convinced
now that it is not ignorance rather stupidity because you have been
told a number of times that it ain't spam yet you still call it that).<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Now
your just being mean and abusive. I'm out of this thread.<br>
</blockquote>
As I said, I respond in kind. Yeah, you're out of this thread except
for the next post I see...<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Copywight 1994 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.<br>
</body>
</html>
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Leslie66 wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">You
were being deliberately rude. Why are you pretending you weren't?<br>
</blockquote>
No I <b>wasn't</b> being deliberately rude at all <b>until</b> you
lashed out at me. Now I'm being deliberately rude. Apparently you can't
tell the difference.<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">I
had to snip it because you were deliberately spamming it.<br>
</blockquote>
For the last time - it ain't spam! (Geeze if you just keep showing your
ignorance in this people will think it's just stupidity. I'm convinced
now that it is not ignorance rather stupidity because you have been
told a number of times that it ain't spam yet you still call it that).<br>
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">Now
your just being mean and abusive. I'm out of this thread.<br>
</blockquote>
As I said, I respond in kind. Yeah, you're out of this thread except
for the next post I see...<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Copywight 1994 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.<br>
</body>
</html>
