Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
You're outta here.

PLONK.

Viking <[email protected]> wrote:

> Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
> You're outta here.
>
> PLONK.

He was completely correct.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:03:07 -0400, Viking <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Alright, talking with you is a useless bag of shit.
>You're outta here.
>
>PLONK.


Meaning you have no clue what you're talking about so you call people
names and act like a child Figures.

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:03:58 -0400, Viking <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
>You're outta here.
>
>PLONK.


Spoken like a true clueless moron

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:04:43 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
>> You're outta here.
>>
>> PLONK.
>
>He was completely correct.

I disagree. To say that BA can absorb $550M without altering prices
doesn't sound plausible.

But that's not why I plonked him. Correct or not he was a ****ing pain
in the ass. I don't put up with timewasting shitheads on usenet
anymore.

Viking <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:04:43 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
> >> You're outta here.
> >>
> >> PLONK.
> >
> >He was completely correct.
>
> I disagree. To say that BA can absorb $550M without altering prices
> doesn't sound plausible.

It was explained to you exactly why it was.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:23:42 -0400, Viking <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:04:43 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
>_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
>>Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
>>> You're outta here.
>>>
>>> PLONK.
>>
>>He was completely correct.
>
>I disagree. To say that BA can absorb $550M without altering prices
>doesn't sound plausible.

Of course you do, because you obviously have no clue as to how
businesses operate no matter how many times it is explained to you.
Not to mention that you also have no idea whether what funds were set
aside came from passengers or cargo, some combination of the two,
retained earnings or whatever. None of which you would comprehend.

>
>But that's not why I plonked him. Correct or not he was a ****ing pain
>in the ass. I don't put up with timewasting shitheads on usenet
>anymore.

As opposed to your immature name calling, of course, where whenever
someone points out the absurdity of your comments you babble
obscenities. Classic sign of immaturity.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:25:25 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:04:43 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
>> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
>> >> You're outta here.
>> >>
>> >> PLONK.
>> >
>> >He was completely correct.
>>
>> I disagree. To say that BA can absorb $550M without altering prices
>> doesn't sound plausible.
>
>It was explained to you exactly why it was.

Perhaps you didn't see my reply:

I disagree. To say that BA can absorb $550M without altering prices
doesn't sound plausible.

But that's not why I plonked him. Correct or not he was a ****ing pain
in the ass. I don't put up with timewasting shitheads on usenet
anymore.

Viking <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:25:25 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:04:43 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> >> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Talking with you is a ****ing net loss.
> >> >> You're outta here.
> >> >>
> >> >> PLONK.
> >> >
> >> >He was completely correct.
> >>
> >> I disagree. To say that BA can absorb $550M without altering prices
> >> doesn't sound plausible.
> >
> >It was explained to you exactly why it was.
>
> Perhaps you didn't see my reply:

I did- I didn't agree with it.

> I disagree. To say that BA can absorb $550M without altering prices
> doesn't sound plausible.
>
> But that's not why I plonked him. Correct or not he was a ****ing pain
> in the ass.

Other than he contradicted you, I don't see why...

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:45:26 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Other than he contradicted you, I don't see why...

He was an insistent, rude, name-calling pain in the ass intent on
making a big thing out of a small thing, attacking with endless posts.

Reasonable comment, I welcome. Pain-in-the-asses, I plonk.

And that's the ****ing end of it.

Viking <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:45:26 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Other than he contradicted you, I don't see why...
>
> He was an insistent, rude, name-calling pain in the ass intent on
> making a big thing out of a small thing, attacking with endless posts.
>
> Reasonable comment, I welcome. Pain-in-the-asses, I plonk.

He seemed pretty reasonable- read the thread- you resorted to "Are you
really so dense" pretty quickly...

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:00:37 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:45:26 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
>> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >Other than he contradicted you, I don't see why...
>>
>> He was an insistent, rude, name-calling pain in the ass intent on
>> making a big thing out of a small thing, attacking with endless posts.
>>
>> Reasonable comment, I welcome. Pain-in-the-asses, I plonk.
>
>He seemed pretty reasonable- read the thread- you resorted to "Are you
>really so dense" pretty quickly...

I deleted the thread already, but as I recall, I was responding to his
accustations of cluelessness.

Look, David, I just put up a news item, and he comes back with a dozen
whining, obstreporous posts, all unverifiable because they depend on
the internals of BA's policy, but all clearly intended to make out
what a know-it-all he was.

It seemed to me that, like a lot of people on usenet, he wanted to
simply come out on top more than he wanted to discuss the issue.

That's not the kind of person I want to hold conversations with.

And guess what? I get to choose who I plonk.

So drop it.

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:52:23 -0400, Viking <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:45:26 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
>_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
>>Other than he contradicted you, I don't see why...
>
>He was an insistent, rude, name-calling pain in the ass intent on
>making a big thing out of a small thing, attacking with endless posts.
>
>Reasonable comment, I welcome. Pain-in-the-asses, I plonk.
>
>And that's the ****ing end of it.


You really are a mindless potty mouth moron aren't you?

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:15:50 -0400, Viking <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:00:37 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
>_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
>>Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:45:26 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
>>> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Other than he contradicted you, I don't see why...
>>>
>>> He was an insistent, rude, name-calling pain in the ass intent on
>>> making a big thing out of a small thing, attacking with endless posts.
>>>
>>> Reasonable comment, I welcome. Pain-in-the-asses, I plonk.
>>
>>He seemed pretty reasonable- read the thread- you resorted to "Are you
>>really so dense" pretty quickly...
>
>I deleted the thread already, but as I recall, I was responding to his
>accustations of cluelessness.

Which came after your starting calling me names.

>
>Look, David, I just put up a news item, and he comes back with a dozen
>whining, obstreporous posts, all unverifiable because they depend on
>the internals of BA's policy, but all clearly intended to make out
>what a know-it-all he was.

Complete nonsense. I responded point by point to your mindless
repetition of a view that was clearly refuted by the news article and
several others trying to educate you as to how things really work in
corporations to which you just repeated a clueless (yes clueless) view
while ignoring the points of those that actually know what they are
talking about. What I said is hardly unverifiable by the way, since
the article said this fine had already been provisioned which means
exactly what it says. No one needs to know BAs internal policies to
understand that. This, of course, was pointed out to you by myself
and others which you just ignored and started name calling.

>
>It seemed to me that, like a lot of people on usenet, he wanted to
>simply come out on top more than he wanted to discuss the issue.

Complete nonsense. I and others were just pointing out how you were
clearly wrong (discussing the issue obviously). Your mindless
repetition of an unsupportable and refutable view was YOU trying to
come out on top not I or the others. Pot calling the kettle black
huh?

>
>That's not the kind of person I want to hold conversations with.

Of course not. Ideologues never want to hold intelligent discussions
with others. They simply want to ram their mindless views of things
down others throats. See George Bush and his success rate.

>
>And guess what? I get to choose who I plonk.
>
>So drop it.

So now you're telling him as well what to do huh genius?

Viking <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:00:37 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Viking <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:45:26 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> >> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Other than he contradicted you, I don't see why...
> >>
> >> He was an insistent, rude, name-calling pain in the ass intent on
> >> making a big thing out of a small thing, attacking with endless posts.
> >>
> >> Reasonable comment, I welcome. Pain-in-the-asses, I plonk.
> >
> >He seemed pretty reasonable- read the thread- you resorted to "Are you
> >really so dense" pretty quickly...
>
> I deleted the thread already, but as I recall, I was responding to his
> accustations of cluelessness.

You weren't. It was a post following up to that one (not by him!) which
accused you of that. He was actually perfectly polite until you said
that...

[]
> And guess what? I get to choose who I plonk.

Of course you do, but I don't think I'm the only one who found you a bit
unreasonable here...

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007