Usenet.comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Re: Shoes... <cont>
No answer here Clay?Quote:>You are a troll Clay, no one can have this type
>of conversation out to four iterations and not
>be deliberately pushing it.
Slough this one off but I do have the experience toQuote:>Okay, if you say there is a real person at that address
>and that you are that person even though experience has
>taught us the exact opposite.
make this statement and let me, for the record, assure
you this is a pleasant change that a real person named
Clay Kent resides at this account address.
No resolution to this one either.Quote:>>>you provide no bona fides,
>>>you answer no questions,
>>>and you simply attack me.
No answer here either.Quote:>Exactly who, Clay, are you, to jump in and
>be judge and jury of "tude" as you put it
>with little or no experience much less
>history with the participants or the
There was your answer Clay, you accuse me, unprovoked,Quote:>>How am I a hypocrite? Care to explain this charge?
>On what basis was this judgement of "tude" rendered?
>Past history and experience? Offence at the tone?
>You sit on your high horse rendering judgement without
>feeling the need to be a participant or to present any
>credentials to back up your judgement.
of arrogant attitude yet cannot see that that action
in itself is totally arrogant especially given the
conditions as layed out and then you "snip" for
convenience ducking the questions.
Do you know what a kill file is Clay? It's obvious thatQuote:>Trust me on this Clay, once you ask me to "be quiet" you
>display that you have no great experience, are unable to
>grasp the concept of a kill file and are simply looking
you do not after you threw "plonk" back at me. It's quite
obvious that you do not have a grounding in a lot of net
things yet you barge ahead like some title maddened
No comment? Was it the part about how confused I became overQuote:>>>You are a bad parody, you fail to understand
>>>quite deliberately that you really have no
>>>legitimate voice, that you cannot make a
>>>mountain out of a molehill
>>Based upon the number and content of your posts
>>directed at me, it is you who are making a mountain
>>out of a mole hill.
>I never posted to you at any time until you posted at me.
>You started it. I will finish it. <now that is slightly
>arrogant but perfectly acceptable given my long history in
the fact that some unknown was jumping into the middle of
something and starting a second level of conflict and making
sure I knew it by posting a copy in my mailbox. That I
interpreted that behaviour as obnoxious and responded in
kind. There is no other interpretation for your actions.
You either did it willfully or out of stupidity.
Wasn't it you that implied english was my second language. "TakeQuote:>>In all fairness, I am willing to admit my err and take the egg
>>on my face for it. It was never my intention to send e-mail and
>>a post. Let the public record show that my apology to you,
>>accepted or not, has been sincerely extended.
the egg on my face for it" doesn't parse very well. How about
"I am willing to admit my error and wipe the egg off of my face"?
After your last post I can see where things are going.Quote:>Sincerity is also best judged by actions not words, so
>the words are there for the record the actions however
>remain to be seen.
You were warned off, you were given a chance. Your actions
are what is at issue here.
The label of hypocrite remains. I answered your questionQuote:>>And you accuse me of not answering your questions.
>>Look in the mirror Terry. Who is the hypocrite here?
>Your questions have been responded to as far as any
>right thinking individual would feel necessary until
>such a time as your "time in" and established "bona
>fides" make you a player here instead of some "wannabe"
>doing a "net cop" impression, badly.
you left my questions out of your response. My questions
on your Amiga use remain unanswered. You cannot even
describe my stance on the Amiga in paraphrase.
Too difficult? Come back when you finish the one pointers.Quote:>Come on Clay, describe your Amiga. What do you use it
>for? Why are you using it and not a clone or apple? Or
>tell us why you still use it when you have whatever
>setup you have that *s up your air-tight case of
>"tude" here by sending e-mail as a default newsgroup
Try very hard Clay to accomplish this task. YouQuote:>>>I keep records, you're not in them, you respond to
>>>none of my Amiga barbs or questions and continue to
>>>lecture me on how things work.
>>How could I possibly respond to your Amiga barbs when
>>I agree with your position of advocacy for the Amiga
>What would that be Clay? In less than a hundred words
>of your own choosing, describe "MY" position on the
>Amiga. You've already stated:
>*}> It depends on what you mean by the term "use".
>*}> I own an Amiga that I would never ever part with
>*}> for any amount of money, but it is too old to be
>*}> useable beyond the software that was once written
>*}> for it.
>This rejoinder, one of only two so far, places
>everything in the "past" tense; and is silent
>with regards to current use and upgrading other
>than to indicate a striking similarity with
>Laura Rogers' positions.
are not doing very well with the basics and yet
you want to be judged an expert on "right and wrong".
Talk about being exposed as a hypocrite, your onlyQuote:>>It is your needlessly arrogant "tude", instead of a
>>clear, logical and mature defense of your position
>>that I am challenging.
>#}> I see some things seem to never change.
>#}> It's been a few years since I've checked
>#}> in here. It seems that this Palfrey guy
>#}> has just become more and more arrogant.
motive in posting was to berate and belittle me.
You have no time in, no use for the Amiga and
have simply chosen this forum to play in.
As to the final matter, you again expose yourself forQuote:>In the words of "Laura Rogers" I'd call this an
>unprovoked "rabid" attack by someone ... to deflect
>the conversation away from the issues at hand onto
>matters best described as being of style and
>Clay you are not subtle or sly. You simply hurl your
>brand of garbage hoping for some of it to stick so
>that you can continue your game, whatever that is.
what you are, a provacateur of the worst sort:
*>>What profound arrogance, based on what, a half a dozen
*>>posts and some distant undocumented past experience you
*>>presume to dissect my motivation, personality and
*>Wow! Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill!
*>Why is it that my response to your arrogant blabbering
*>has to be interpreted as a full blown personal attack
*>on poor, young Terry and his whole personality and
*>lifestyle? I don't know you, and so I have no reason to
*>comment on your lifestyle. Even if I did, I wouldn't
*>comment on it.
You lie like a rug Clay. Exactly what did you mean to say
when you typed this little gem and left what I was responding
to so conveniently out of the reply?
*>>>I don't believe that there is any way for any one
*>>>to ever answer you to your satisfaction, since, you
*>>>are the sort of spoiled brat who only wants to hear
*>>>what he likes to hear. I take it "yes men" are
*>>>your favorite type of company?
What happened to your objective analysis Clay?
*>>It is your needlessly arrogant "tude", instead of a
*>>clear, logical and mature defense of your position
*>>that I am challenging.
Sure you are Clay, with winning lines like this:
*>>you are an arrogant, self-centered person who can
*>>dish it out, but can't take it very well.
You Clay dish it out but don't feel obliged to take
it in any way.