Re: digest 2453240

From: Michael Lockhart (ml1000_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:26:21 -0400

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:n72dj0tsg4fgbi9k1aa7okfit4r17r3bv1@4ax.com...
> "Michael Lockhart" wrote:
> tholen@antispam.ham tholed:
>>> You had nothing to do with any of it until you decided to get involved,
>>> Lockhart.
>>
>>No one ever has anything to do with any thread until they decide to get
>>involved, in general. That is meaningless. Are you complaining that you
>>would like to discuss the snipped material with me, and my snipping has in
>>some way deprived you of the pleasure? If not, cease your disingenuous
>>(and
>>ironic) complaining and return to the matter at hand: why have you
>>apparently ceased you digestification and gone back to individual replies?
>
> The "figures" from tholokook is obviously intentionally antagonistic.
> There's no other reason for the "figures" in a case like this, where
> snipping was quite appropriate.

Of course.

>>> That despite having previously stated that I deserve no more
>>> replies.
>>
>>Your renewed obnoxiousness demanded my attention.
>
> Renewed?

Sorry. I meant his returning to his old, higher level of newsgroup
pollution.

>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I posted "moronic nonresponses",
>>>>> Lockhart.
>>>> Hardly.
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>
>>Your posts continually substantiate that fact.
>
> From the perspective of a moron, tholen's responses indeed do not
> appear to be moronic.

Yes, that probably explains his view of it.

>>> You still haven't explained what your question has to do with classical
>>> music, Lockhart.
>>
>>You still haven't answered my question, which I asked first.
>
> Refusing to answer questions is one of the many ways to thole.

I wonder if he'll read that and finally take it as an answer to his
endlessly iterated question about that word.

Michael

Quantcast