Ian St. John wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
>>Ian St. John wrote:
>>
[cut :D]
>
D*mn Ian, now *that* was the response I was looking for. Thanks!! Now
I'm off reading all of your response!
Re: Alternative interpretation of the KT boundary and dionsaur die-off ... Once again Idiot Ian elides ALL context, ... gibbering in response to? ... with no supporting evidence or logic, THEY know they're lying to you. ... Again Ian engages in counter-factual gibbering.... (sci.space.policy)
Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran? ... If you were bored by my response to your diatribe, ... I think you owe Richard an apology actually. ... Could it be that you accused me of approving of the attacks made on ... (rec.music.gdead)
Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran? ... If you were bored by my response to your diatribe, it's only because you asked such simple questions and/or expressed sentiments that were so easily answered/refuted. ... And, quite frankly, whether or not I am taken seriously in an anonymous Usenet forum doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.... ...Richard in no way justified the terrorist attacks perpetrated on 9/11. ... do you think Richards owes me an apology for calling me a lying idiot? ... (rec.music.gdead)
Re: iostream error. ... Nowhere in the thread leading to it did Ian ever appear, nor did Ian ever indicate why my post was "superflyous." ... There was no reason that someone who posted a parallel response would be rudely intruding. ... He didn't even have the decency to tell me that the reason that my post was "superfluous" was that he had preempted the field in a parallel post, and he now owned the newsgroup. ... He obviously is very rude and he obviously has no clue how newsgroups work.... (comp.lang.c)
