On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:14:51 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:11:36 +0000,
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
>>>>>> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
>>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has zero to
>>>>>>> do with the BBC or MS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark has issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
>>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
>>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
>>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
>>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
>>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you reply
>>>> to ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
>>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
>>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
>>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
>>>
>>
>> You *quoted* Kier's reply, stating that he didn't work for the BBC, and
>> yet, in that same message, you claimed he hadn't answered the question
>> of whether he worked for the BBC! your excuse? that he answered the
>> question after you asked it!
>
> I'm getting a bit concerned about you, Jim. This is the second time in
> a month you've made almost the same error. If you look, you will see,
> directly above, that I ask the question, and then he replies with a
> bunch of abuse. I didn't say that he hadn't answered the question (read
> what I say very carefully, please), rather, I quite specifically say
> that the proper response to my question is either Yes or No, not a load
> of trolling abuse.
To which *I* answered, I called you names because you deserved them,
asking me a loaded question to which I'm quite sure you knew the answer,
since I have made no secret whatever of being a manual worker who has no
professional connection with IT.
>
> This trolling by Kier is why I say he's a troll. His response is
> specifically designed to troll a response, and a none-too pleasant one
> at that, from a perfectly reasonably question. This is why he's in my
> killfile.
I'm in your killfile yet you ask questions of me, call me troll, and
insist I have some 'agenda', then wonder why I get annoyed? My response
was designed only to express my annoyance at *you*, posting about *me* in
a manner which could certainly be called trolling. Asking whether I work
for the BBC implies that I have other reasons than the obvious one for
speaking out against all this ridiculous 'MSBBC' nonsense. You are quite
happy to call me names when it suits you, but I have not called you a
troll, ever.
>
>>
>>
>> well duh!
>>
>
> Please re-read and rethink your words, Jim. You seem to be seeing
> ghosts or reds under the bed or fairies in the garden or something. To
> put it another way, you appear to have issues...
You are the one who should think again.
--
Kier
|
|
