Re: temple/pyramid plans

[Rude, ignorant top-posting corrected]

Chris wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:29 am, Kendall K. Down <webmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <1167203495.055106.91...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Chris" <chrisg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That was not a helpful post ("wacky"?! Is that how you talk to
people?).Anyone who 1) top posts, 2) comes to an archaeology newsgroup to talk about
"sacred sites" 3) and seems worried about their precise dimensions, deserves
to be called wacky.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Thank you Ken Young. i will check it out.

Ken Down: i can only conclude you do not have any reference
information for me. therefore, please don't post.

That's twice you've posted in reply to someone here. And twice you've
told that other person not to post.

I don't know where the *** you think you are, sonny, but here on
Usenet, no one on an unmoderated group can be stopped from posting. You
have the absolute right to not reply to someone; and if you have the
skills and equipment, you can kill-file those you find not to your
taste. But if you do not resort to that sort of self-help, you get what
you deserve.

BTW, the two folks you just pissed off (other than me)? Had you
approached them with a better attitude, you could have gotten lots of
really great information. Instead, you pitch a hissy. What a loss on
your part.

you may own your
ill-based presumptions but you do not own this site.

LOL! Would that you would see your ignorant arrogance in this sentence.
No, he does not own this site. You do not own this site. The site is a
Usenet newsgroup, and ownership of the group is truly not an issue.

But then, perhaps you are only ignorant. That can be cured. Arrogance,
well, that takes being taken down some pegs to accomplish.

thank you.

No charge.

.