nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:33:18 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Miguel Cruz writes:
    >> Except a couple days ago.
    >Not even a couple days ago.
MPOTY
Meaningless post of the year.
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:49:18 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:25:28 +0000, chancellor of the duchy of besses o'
    >th' barn wrote:
    >> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> By now you should know that I'm indifferent
    >>> to personal attacks.
    >>
    >> The only thing that I know for certain is that it's highly possible in
    >> any thread here that you'll eventually resort to claiming you've being
    >> attacked. You've got a history of it, though I note you seem to have
    >> learned what 'ad hominem' means, so you don't throw that around as
    >> gratuitously as you used to. I can think of ways of describing this
    >> penchant of yours- indifference is certainly not one of them.
    >At least he doesn't claim we're all Nazis.

or in love with Mrs T.
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:38:43 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:42:37 +0100, Jeremy Henderson wrote:
    >>> There could be, but I believe this explanation is the correct one, after
    >>> dealing with this for many years.
    >>
    >> You may be right, and you are a member of a small intellectual elite.
    >> Perhaps you are part of an advance party of super intelligent
    >> extraterrestrials sent to prepare for an invasion from outer space.
    >> That would explain your ability to grasp impossibly difficult concepts,
    >> and your inability to communicate with mere Earthlings.
    >Maybe he can program a video recorder.

Too late, they are obsolete. I can program an Elliot 803, but there
isn't much need for these skills any more.
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:41:03 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:16:37 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> devil writes:
    >>
    >>> Most people would prefer not to get into such personal details, surely?
    >>
    >> If they don't, then how could Jeremy know those details?
    >>
    >>> Can't you just take what Jeremy says at face value?
    >>
    >> See above.
    >You haven't been following the threads where *real* people talk to each
    >other have you? Better write a warning message to SYSPRINT for your
    >programmer.

Does Miguel work for EDL by any chance?
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:43:10 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:18:30 -0600, Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> [email protected] writes:
    >>>> because Jeremy either has witnesses or is running a large number of
    >>>> sock puppets that all went out for a meal together last weekend.
    >>> I have no proof of that.
    >>
    >> Magda, you better finish off that film.
    >>
    >> miguel
    >No good, he'll only think it's a photoshop'ed fake. Or at least have no
    >proof that it isn't.

"Did the earth move for you honey or was it just another of your
photoshop fakes?"
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:53:32 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Mxsmanic
    >>> I worry you may be getting too emotionally tied up in this discussion.
    >>I don't become emotional over USENET discussions.
    >No need to "shout"

or spell it out.
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:53:35 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>I don't think Mixi's motive is to troll, maybe it looks like it to
    >>those who disagree with him.
    >Can you give a credible alternative explanation for his posting
    >style?

He's what he is. I bet he'll deny this.
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:53:36 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>Don't be unfair. About 50% of the time I agree with him.
    >how long did it take to find out what he was saying here?

About 3 or 4 posts and you?
--
Martin

The Reids

Following up to Padraig Breathnach

    >>What do you expect to achieve with your pointless arguments?
    >He's achieving it.

that's my conclusion.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Tim Challenger

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:43:22 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:43:10 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:18:30 -0600, Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> [email protected] writes:
    >>>>> because Jeremy either has witnesses or is running a large number of
    >>>>> sock puppets that all went out for a meal together last weekend.
    >>>> I have no proof of that.
    >>>
    >>> Magda, you better finish off that film.
    >>>
    >>> miguel
    >>No good, he'll only think it's a photoshop'ed fake. Or at least have no
    >>proof that it isn't.
    >
    > "Did the earth move for you honey or was it just another of your
    > photoshop fakes?"

Mixi doesn't have those sort of relationships.

--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:41:43 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:41:03 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:16:37 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>> devil writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Most people would prefer not to get into such personal details, surely?
    >>>
    >>> If they don't, then how could Jeremy know those details?
    >>>
    >>>> Can't you just take what Jeremy says at face value?
    >>>
    >>> See above.
    >>You haven't been following the threads where *real* people talk to each
    >>other have you? Better write a warning message to SYSPRINT for your
    >>programmer.
    >
    > Does Miguel work for EDL by any chance?

EDL? wots dat?
--
Tim C.

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:06:34 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:43:22 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:43:10 +0100, Tim Challenger
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:18:30 -0600, Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>> [email protected] writes:
    >>>>>> because Jeremy either has witnesses or is running a large number of
    >>>>>> sock puppets that all went out for a meal together last weekend.
    >>>>> I have no proof of that.
    >>>>
    >>>> Magda, you better finish off that film.
    >>>>
    >>>> miguel
    >>>No good, he'll only think it's a photoshop'ed fake. Or at least have no
    >>>proof that it isn't.
    >>
    >> "Did the earth move for you honey or was it just another of your
    >> photoshop fakes?"
    >Mixi doesn't have those sort of relationships.

Do you have proof?
--
Martin

Tim Challenger

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:08:00 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:06:34 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:43:22 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:43:10 +0100, Tim Challenger
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:18:30 -0600, Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>> [email protected] writes:
    >>>>>>> because Jeremy either has witnesses or is running a large number of
    >>>>>>> sock puppets that all went out for a meal together last weekend.
    >>>>>> I have no proof of that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Magda, you better finish off that film.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> miguel
    >>>>No good, he'll only think it's a photoshop'ed fake. Or at least have no
    >>>>proof that it isn't.
    >>>
    >>> "Did the earth move for you honey or was it just another of your
    >>> photoshop fakes?"
    >>Mixi doesn't have those sort of relationships.
    >
    > Do you have proof?

No. :-)
The best I can do is that he said so. Not recently though, maybe he's met
someone?

--
Tim C.

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:07:16 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:41:43 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:41:03 +0100, Tim Challenger
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:16:37 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>>> devil writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Most people would prefer not to get into such personal details, surely?
    >>>>
    >>>> If they don't, then how could Jeremy know those details?
    >>>>
    >>>>> Can't you just take what Jeremy says at face value?
    >>>>
    >>>> See above.
    >>>You haven't been following the threads where *real* people talk to each
    >>>other have you? Better write a warning message to SYSPRINT for your
    >>>programmer.
    >>
    >> Does Miguel work for EDL by any chance?
    >EDL? wots dat?

A mistake. It should have been EDS.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/intern...092919,00.html
--
Martin

nitram

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:26:15 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:08:00 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:06:34 +0100, Tim Challenger
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:43:22 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:43:10 +0100, Tim Challenger
    >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:18:30 -0600, Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >>>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
    >>>>>>>> because Jeremy either has witnesses or is running a large number of
    >>>>>>>> sock puppets that all went out for a meal together last weekend.
    >>>>>>> I have no proof of that.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Magda, you better finish off that film.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> miguel
    >>>>>No good, he'll only think it's a photoshop'ed fake. Or at least have no
    >>>>>proof that it isn't.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Did the earth move for you honey or was it just another of your
    >>>> photoshop fakes?"
    >>>Mixi doesn't have those sort of relationships.
    >>
    >> Do you have proof?
    >No. :-)
    >The best I can do is that he said so.

I suppose you realise you will have to quote the post, where he said
this?

References to not enough room in his broom cupboard to swing a cat do
not count.

    >Not recently though, maybe he's met
    >someone?

His match?

--
Martin