Scuba Forum / General / November 2003
Salty...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Michael Ross - 03 Nov 2003 05:08 GMT ...what you choose to do with your own money is your own business. It's in appalling taste to share your choice, in the terms you did, with a whole bunch of people.
Seldom have I seen so many ill-informed conjectures, suppositions, and assumptions taken as facts.
(if you didn't see Barb's email please ignore this thread, you won't get it).
Mike http://www.corestore.org
'The avalanche has already started It is too late for the pebbles to vote'
Alan Street - 03 Nov 2003 05:39 GMT >...what you choose to do with your own money is your own business. >It's in appalling taste to share your choice, in the terms you did, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >(if you didn't see Barb's email please ignore this thread, you won't >get it). Mike - e-mail is private, the newsgroup is public. I expect you know this better than most of us. Is it really appropriate to deal with a private e-mail here on rec.scuba?
Alan
Michael Ross - 03 Nov 2003 05:45 GMT >>...what you choose to do with your own money is your own business. >>It's in appalling taste to share your choice, in the terms you did, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >this better than most of us. Is it really appropriate to deal with a >private e-mail here on rec.scuba? Alan,
Normally I would agree entirely. In this case the email was one I consider singularly inappropriate, and it was sent *bcc* to, according to the email itself, "many" rec.scubans. Since it was bcc'd, this is the only forum I have to reach both the sender and all the recipients.
Mike http://www.corestore.org
'The avalanche has already started It is too late for the pebbles to vote'
Curtis - 03 Nov 2003 06:03 GMT > Normally I would agree entirely. In this case the email was one I > consider singularly inappropriate, and it was sent *bcc* to, according > to the email itself, "many" rec.scubans. Since it was bcc'd, this is > the only forum I have to reach both the sender and all the recipients. Really? Then how did Salty get the addies? She surely didn't post here.
Think before you post.......
Curtis
Michael Ross - 03 Nov 2003 06:27 GMT >> Normally I would agree entirely. In this case the email was one I >> consider singularly inappropriate, and it was sent *bcc* to, according [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Really? Then how did Salty get the addies? She surely didn't post >here. I have no flaming idea how Salty chose who to send the email to. Since it was sent BCC I have no idea who was on the list, only that Salty herself said it was 'many' rec.scubans.
> Think before you post....... I did! Now what exactly are you saying I didn't think about sufficently?
Mike, going to bed. http://www.corestore.org
'The avalanche has already started It is too late for the pebbles to vote'
suds - 03 Nov 2003 06:48 GMT > I did! Now what exactly are you saying I didn't think about > sufficently? Did you consider the "Reply to All" button?
suds
Dan Bracuk - 04 Nov 2003 03:16 GMT "suds" <sudsysadie@hawaii{is the #1 state for Spam eaters}.rr.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
:Did you consider the "Reply to All" button? Doesn't help when the sender bcc's most of the recipients.
Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
suds - 04 Nov 2003 19:21 GMT > "suds" <sudsysadie@hawaii{is the #1 state for Spam eaters}.rr.com> > pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: > :Did you consider the "Reply to All" button? > > Doesn't help when the sender bcc's most of the recipients. I wish I could verify this but I've already deleted the email.
suds
Michael Ross - 04 Nov 2003 20:07 GMT >> "suds" <sudsysadie@hawaii{is the #1 state for Spam eaters}.rr.com> >> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I wish I could verify this but I've already deleted the email. Chris Painter has posted the email to this group. It begins:
"Hi all,
You are receiving this as part of a blind CC email to many of the rec.scuba group."
Hence no way for any of the recipents to dispute or correct the 'facts' of the email with anyone other than the sender; the many recipients can't reach each other, except by a public posting, because no-one except Salty can know who they were.
This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*.
Mike http://www.corestore.org
'The avalanche has already started It is too late for the pebbles to vote'
Limey Dave - 04 Nov 2003 20:56 GMT > Chris Painter has posted the email to this group. It begins: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. Cool! Can someone learn me how to do that?
Limey.
Chris Painter - 05 Nov 2003 03:10 GMT > > This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. I really don't care. Thats fine for a business situation like a CEO sending out a memo to his whole company, but it's completly unacceptable behavior in a public group forum.
Chris
chilly - 05 Nov 2003 03:29 GMT > > > This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. > > I really don't care. Thats fine for a business situation like a CEO sending > out a memo to his whole company, but it's completly unacceptable behavior in > a public group forum. What exactly is your malfunction, mister? It wasn't a "public group forum". It was a private *email* that happened to be addressed to a number of people. That said, receiving many emails are probably something you don't need to worry about rtoo many much in the near future. Why would *anyone* send *any kind* of private email to you when you have expressed that to you, email is not to be considered confidential nor should it be considered private?
If you care so damn much about a grieving young woman, why would you go out of your way to see that she was hurt? Salty didn't hurt her, the a.shole(s) that sent her a private communication hurt her.
Sven - 05 Nov 2003 05:26 GMT I sure am glad that I have no idea what this whole thread is about !
-Sven
Jammer Six - 05 Nov 2003 05:27 GMT > I sure am glad that I have no idea what this whole thread is about ! Well, neither does jackie, but that never stops him...
 Signature "Let's roll!" -Todd Beamer, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 12:48 GMT > € I sure am glad that I have no idea what this whole thread is about ! > > Well, neither does jackie, but that never stops him... Amen brother. haha
Safe Diving.
L8R
Jammer Six - 05 Nov 2003 08:39 GMT > Amen brother. haha You spelled "master" wrong.
 Signature "We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 20:01 GMT > € Amen brother. haha > > You spelled "master" wrong. hehe
Safe Diving.
L8R
Limey Dave - 05 Nov 2003 16:27 GMT > ? I sure am glad that I have no idea what this whole thread is about ! > > Well, neither does jackie, but that never stops him... HAha I'm going to have to run you a tab.
Dave.
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 12:46 GMT > I sure am glad that I have no idea what this whole thread is about ! > > -Sven Believe ma ya ain't missed nothin.
Safe Diving.
L8r
Limey Dave - 05 Nov 2003 16:27 GMT > > > This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. > > I really don't care. Thats fine for a business situation like a CEO sending > out a memo to his whole company, but it's completly unacceptable behavior in > a public group forum. First, get your attributions right. Second, it wasn't sent out in a public forum, it was sent out in e-mail. If you're not sure of the difference, ask.
Dave.
Steve - 06 Nov 2003 02:53 GMT >>>>This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. >> >> I really don't care. Thats fine for a business situation like a CEO >> sending out a memo to his whole company,
> First, get your attributions right. Second, it wasn't sent out in a public > forum, it was sent out in e-mail. If you're not sure of the difference, ask. I've got to ask something. Why would a CEO use BCC to send a company memo to everyone in the company?
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Chandler - 06 Nov 2003 03:23 GMT > >>>>This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > everyone > in the company? so he could claim he didn't know anything about no fraud?
 Signature --Chandler -- May Hog be your boatman when you reach the River Styx
Limey Dave - 06 Nov 2003 13:22 GMT > >>>>This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've got to ask something. Why would a CEO use BCC to send a company memo to everyone > in the company? I'd have to say the same thing about checking attrib's to that. I didn't say it and it makes absolutely no sense to me, and neither does much else Painter has said on this subject.
Dave.
Steve - 07 Nov 2003 05:41 GMT > "Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote
>>I've got to ask something. Why would a CEO use BCC to send a company memo >> to everyone in the company?
> I'd have to say the same thing about checking attrib's to that. If you look closely, you'll see that the attributions are perfect. You said he could ask so I took the liberty of asking something.
While we're somewhat on the subject, though, you might note that certain people around here make it more difficult than it needs to be to figure out who said what by leaving in several post's worth of stuff that isn't necessary for context.
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Limey Dave - 08 Nov 2003 22:58 GMT > >>I've got to ask something. Why would a CEO use BCC to send a company memo > >> to everyone in the company? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you look closely, you'll see that the attributions are perfect. You said he could > ask so I took the liberty of asking something. No need to look closely, you asked a question, seemingly of me, as though I should have an answer for you. Seeing as how I didn't make the comment which you questioned, my answer would have to be that I have no freaking clue.
> While we're somewhat on the subject, though, you might note that certain people > around here make it more difficult than it needs to be to figure out who said what > by leaving in several post's worth of stuff that isn't necessary for context. You might also note that several people around here cut so much content from posts to which they respond that it's damn near impossible to figger out what the hell they're talking aboot. FWIW, I usually just delete those posts.
Dave.
Salty - 05 Nov 2003 05:17 GMT > >> "suds" <sudsysadie@hawaii{is the #1 state for Spam eaters}.rr.com> > >> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > >I wish I could verify this but I've already deleted the email.
> Chris Painter has posted the email to this group. It begins: > "Hi all, > You are receiving this as part of a blind CC email to many of the > rec.scuba group."
> Hence no way for any of the recipents to dispute or correct the > 'facts' of the email with anyone other than the sender; That was a problem for you I guess because you weren't sent the email and you were afraid to approach me ??
> the many > recipients can't reach each other, except by a public posting, because > no-one except Salty can know who they were. And they were all too brain-dead to ask me who received the email ?? Or too frightened ?? They couldn't stand up and ask me for some more open lines of communication ?? That's really pitiful.
> This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. No, actually a BCC is out of courtesy for those who may not wish their email addy and real name splattered all over. For instance, NE33RO or NEE33PR or NE3CPO, whatever... isn't a friend of mine. He never told me his real name or his email addy. But thanks to a regular CC email that I received, I now have his info. I'm sure he's delighted. It's ppl like him that I was trying to protect with the BCC. No good deed goes unpunished here. LMAO !!
LJ - 05 Nov 2003 10:24 GMT <<clip>>
But thanks to a regular CC email
> that I received, I now have his info. I'm sure he's delighted. It's > ppl like him that I was trying to protect with the BCC. No good deed > goes unpunished here. LMAO !! I've lurked and occasionally posted here for over a year. I do not know the background of this situation, but I do know enough to determine that you were not trying to protect anyone here, except yourself.
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 20:06 GMT >>Michael Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > background of this situation, but I do know enough to determine that you > were not trying to protect anyone here, except yourself. Smart person there well done.
Safe Diving.
L8R
bullshark - 05 Nov 2003 12:33 GMT >Hence no way for any of the recipents to dispute or correct the >'facts' of the email with anyone other than the sender; the many >recipients can't reach each other, except by a public posting, because >no-one except Salty can know who they were. >This kind of concealment is what BCC is *for*. Bcc isn't about deception. Who the hell else Salty mailed to besides you is none of your damned business. It never was, it never will be. It is just as though she emailed each recipient one at a time. If she wanted concealment, that's what she would have done. But she didn't. She Bcc'd, making it clear that you were not the only recipient. Words fail to describe the grandeur of your ignorance.
This is a public forum. Mailing to To:/Cc: lists containing names of people with no association is a huge mistake, a discourtesy, a faux pas, an intrusion. Only a rank newbie would not know this.
Ya wanna know why?
ID-10Ts reply-all indiscriminately and swarm the mail box with unwanted crap.
PEBKACs repost private communications in public forums.
Net-tards take the list and add it to your joke of the day club.
Newscompoops with no idea what they're are doing, repost the list or forward to other non-public forums or even do people favors and sign them up for stuff to get airline miles.
Real people, who are readers and posters, want no association with one/some/ other/all posters. It is rude to create/force that association without permission.
Recipients leave those mails in their inbox, sent, drafts and trash, assuring multiple lists of valid, ripe targets for the next round of virii or spyware to harvest.
Half the people on that list post with munged or fake email addresses. The Cc: or To: would contain only the real deal.
The Bcc: was utter, total respect for your privacy and the privacy and security of others. Did it ever occur to you that the Bcc: guaranteed that each recipient on the Bcc: list got *exactly* the same message body? Salty sent precisely one message, and SMTP reconstructed the deliveries.
What difference doe it make who got it? Are you too tiny to discuss your differences with Salty *alone*? You need a gang to discuss her opinions?
In a prior post, you said:
>Michael Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote: > >>...what you choose to do with your own money is your own business. >>It's in appalling taste to share your choice, in the terms you did, >>with a whole bunch of people. Why is that? Are you some Martha Stewart of the Net or something? Is there some reason that you were put in charge of deciding this? Irony of ironies a.shole, you didn't even offer it as conjecture, or privately.
>>Seldom have I seen so many ill-informed conjectures, suppositions, and >>assumptions taken as facts. I couldn't agree more, only the subject is you, and your taste.
Not one conjecture was presented as anything else. "I believe"..."I guess"..."apparently", "I've decided" "hog would". If you had any command of the English language you would know immediately that those are not matters of fact.
Now go away and play with jackie. You two have a lot in common
Dan Bracuk - 04 Nov 2003 02:49 GMT Michael Ross <mike@corestore.org> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
:I did! Now what exactly are you saying I didn't think about :sufficently? Perhaps he meant that you formed the wrong opinion.
Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
Lee Bell - 03 Nov 2003 07:35 GMT in > Normally I would agree entirely. In this case the email was one I
> consider singularly inappropriate, and it was sent *bcc* to, according > to the email itself, "many" rec.scubans. Since it was bcc'd, this is > the only forum I have to reach both the sender and all the recipients. If you don't understand why you're wrong, email me privately and I'll tell you.
Lee
Dan Bracuk - 04 Nov 2003 02:50 GMT "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
:If you don't understand why you're wrong, email me privately and I'll tell :you. Why not share that thought with everyone, right here on rec.scuba? His point was made publicly - why should your counter-point be private?
Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
chilly - 03 Nov 2003 23:59 GMT > "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > His point was made publicly - why should your counter-point be > private? Email him privately and he'll tell you privately.
Steve - 04 Nov 2003 05:50 GMT > Since it was bcc'd, this is > the only forum I have to reach both the sender and all the recipients. My reading comprehension must not be up to snuff this week. I think I'm pretty clear on which parts of your post were directed at Salty, but would you mind pointing out which parts were directed to people who received her e-mail and therefore needed to be posted here?
 Signature Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
Calamari - 04 Nov 2003 00:04 GMT > Mike - e-mail is private, the newsgroup is public. I expect you know > this better than most of us. Is it really appropriate to deal with a > private e-mail here on rec.scuba? Alan... at first when I read Mike's post, I assumed that I sent him the email as part of the BCC. But after checking my list, I didn't !! So I suppose that since Mike received it from someone else, he thought he'd share here. BTW, thank you for saying that email is private. I agree and I appreciate you stating the same thoughts, even though I suspect that you probably think the nature of my email was too harsh. Thank you to Lee and Curtis all for the same.
Mad Dog Hog - 06 Nov 2003 06:19 GMT > Alan... at first when I read Mike's post, I assumed that I sent him > the email as part of the BCC. But after checking my list, I didn't !! > So I suppose that since Mike received it from someone else, he > thought he'd share here. Yes -- I sent it to him. A few people sent it to me and I was pretty upset. He wanted to understand why I was doing less well instead of better. So I showed it to him.
Kimber
Chris Painter - 04 Nov 2003 02:42 GMT > Mike - e-mail is private, the newsgroup is public. I expect you know > this better than most of us. Is it really appropriate to deal with a > private e-mail here on rec.scuba? Alan-
Alan, I don't think you know the whole story here. I was also offended by the crude trash email that she bcc'd ( in her own words ) "to many of the rec.scuba group".
I was just going to ignore the email, but I'm glad someone brought it up.
Chris
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 04:53 GMT > I was also offended by the crude trash email that she bcc'd ( in her > own words ) "to many of the rec.scuba group". That's pretty funny...
 Signature "Let's roll!" -Todd Beamer, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Alan Street - 04 Nov 2003 05:45 GMT >> Mike - e-mail is private, the newsgroup is public. I expect you know >> this better than most of us. Is it really appropriate to deal with a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I was just going to ignore the email, but I'm glad someone brought it up. I'm not. I appreciate everyone's right to have strong opinions (God knows Hog would understand that :-), but I don't think a public newgroup is the right place to hash these particular issues out, at this particular time. Silence is often the most effective form of disapproval.
Alan
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 06:18 GMT > Silence is often the most effective form of disapproval. So, you approve?
 Signature "We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 13:36 GMT > €"Alan Street" <alan@nonono_irsi.com> wrote in message > €news:021120032139074022%alan@nonono_irsi.com... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Alan Silence oft times can be MIS-Interpreted as tact consent.
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 07:53 GMT > Silence oft times can be MIS-Interpreted as tact consent. NOT by ADULTS, jacky.
 Signature "Let's roll!" -Todd Beamer, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Grumman-581 - 05 Nov 2003 06:30 GMT > Silence oft times can be MIS-Interpreted as tact consent. Perhaps, but nuclear weapons always send clear signals of your intentions... <grin>
Limey Dave - 04 Nov 2003 20:50 GMT > I'm not. I appreciate everyone's right to have strong opinions (God > knows Hog would understand that :-), but I don't think a public > newgroup is the right place to hash these particular issues out, at > this particular time. Silence is often the most effective form of > disapproval. Which doesn't paint the clearest picture in the world about your feelings on the subject.
Dave.
Calamari - 04 Nov 2003 07:37 GMT > Alan- > > Alan, I don't think you know the whole story here. I was also offended by > the crude trash email that she bcc'd ( in her own words ) "to many of the > rec.scuba group".
> I was just going to ignore the email, but I'm glad someone brought it up. So now that someone brought it up Chris, why don't you tell us what you found offensive about it ??
Personally, my opinion that donating to The National Aquarium in Baltimore would be a 'good karma move' was reinforced 10-fold today. The last name of the man who answered the phone there and who handles donations is.... of all names that it could possibly be..... Smith.
Lee Bell - 03 Nov 2003 07:33 GMT Michael, You have a problem with what Salty wrote, take it private. This, in particular, has no business being here.
Lee
Calamari - 03 Nov 2003 22:35 GMT > Michael, You have a problem with what Salty wrote, take it private. This, > in particular, has no business being here. Lee... several ppl emailed me in reply. Some commented on my email to the extent of saying "no" or "sounds like an ok idea". Others did not comment about the email at all but chose to use it to facilitate a 'hey, how ya been?' kind of exchange. It's a shame that Mike decided to post a reply to the NG. I agree that he shouldn't have but no matter. What's really a shame is that someone felt it necessary to send the email to Kimber. She and I will discuss it. No worries and I certainly don't see this issue as a big deal.
Kimber - 04 Nov 2003 10:15 GMT > Lee... several ppl emailed me in reply. Some commented on my email to > the extent of saying "no" or "sounds like an ok idea". Others did not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > send the email to Kimber. She and I will discuss it. No worries and I > certainly don't see this issue as a big deal. Well, my mother taught me not to say things about prople that I woudn't say to their faces. Seems to me that your intention was to be unkind and deceitful. Things you were saying you didnt want me and select few others to know.
Kimber
Salty - 05 Nov 2003 04:33 GMT > > Lee... several ppl emailed me in reply. Some commented on my email to > > the extent of saying "no" or "sounds like an ok idea". Others did not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > deceitful. Things you were saying you didnt want me and select few others > to know. Separate post to follow.
Mad Dog Hog - 06 Nov 2003 06:21 GMT > send the email to Kimber. She and I will discuss it. No worries and I > certainly don't see this issue as a big deal. I am waiting....
Kimber
Chris Painter - 04 Nov 2003 02:44 GMT Email sent to me is not deemed confidential. Here is the repost that she bcc'd to me:
Hi all,
You are receiving this as part of a blind CC email to many of the rec.scuba group. You may have received an email from a friend asking you to donate money to Kimber to help her out with expenses that she has now in light of Mickey's (Airhog) death. I have received the email and I've pondered over it. The outcome of my pondering is that I find sending money directly to Kimber is something that I do not wish to do.
Kimber herself posted Mick's obituary where she says ...
"Family-Placed Death Notice Mickey Charles Smith, age 35, of Lawrenceville passed away on October 25, 2003. He is survived by his wife, Kimberly D. Smith, children, Robert Smith, Logan Thurman, Kylia Thurman, all of Lawrenceville, GA; mother and step father, Linda and David Crow of Snellville, GA; sister, Tina Smith of Snellville, GA; uncle, Lannie Parker of Cumming, GA. His twin brother from a different mother, Popeye, his family at Rec. Scuba, several aunts and uncles. A memorial service will be held on November 1, 2003 at 11:00 A.M. at Grace Fellowship Church, with Rev. Randy Rainwater officiating. In lieu of flowers, memorials can be made to NSS-Cave Diving Section, 2109 W. US 90, Suite 317, Lake City, FL 32055. Wages & Sons Gwinnett Chapel, 1031 Lawrenceville Highway, Lawrenceville, 770-277-4550. Published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on 10/30/2003."
Note that in the obit above, the family feels donations to the National Speleological Society , Cave Diving Section would be just fine.
I saw where Kimber posted to her blog on her website that she would need to ask ppl on the internet for money because she couldn't afford to pay for Mickey's obituary or the copies of his death certificate. The obit is always a free service of the funeral home / cremation facility. There is no charge for it. And the government gives you quite a few copies of the death certificate for free. 10 free copies in PA and 10 free copies in NC. I imagine that GA is probably similar and if Hog didn't own much, there would be no need for more than the free amount given. So she doesn't have to pay for that either. I guess she was just so overwhelmed with the death, the services, her upcoming flight to Seattle that she didn't realize this. I would guess that Mickey's mother, step-father, sister and uncle will help with the funeral expense and I imagine that they would act as most other families would in this situation. At any rate, let's get past the obvious draws for money that Kimber could have, ie. her 2 kids assuming that the father of those kids pays child support, ect.
Hog openly admitted that his rude, crude insulting behavior on the net was much in part due to the fact that he had an alcohol abuse problem and a mental disorder. I believe both he and Kimber stated he had Biplar Disorder. He was apparently seeking treatment for his problems and was on psychotropic medication, which did tone down the nastiness of his posts from time to time.
In the rec.scuba chat room, one person that he treated especially rude and with absolutely no reason was George. George is a volunteer worker at The National Aquarium in Baltimore. For me, Hog's rude behavior toward George holds a special significance because it's part of the reason that I kicked and banned him and Kimber from the chat channel, causing a mass exodus from the channel itself. This, in turn caused many other events that lead up to Jack Farmer eventually kicking them from his channel and closing his channel down entirely... which then lead them to come to Efnet to try to start problems there, etc, etc. Actually... that's of little consequence but Hog's attitude toward George is not.
I've decided that, since Hog was trying to change.... trying to see a psychiatrist and take medication and abstain from alcohol ...so that he could become a nicer person on the internet, then IMHO, Hog would appreciate the donation plan that I propose.
I am going to call The National Aquarium in Baltimore on Monday and ask to speak to the Donor Relations Coordinator. I intend to donate money to the aquarium in Mickey's name. Hog was nasty to George in life but now we can have Hog being nice to George in a round about way by having the aquarium that George works for benefit by donations in Hog's name. I think this is an excellent means of karma.
At first, I was going to see if I could send my donation to "The Mickey C Smith Memorial Fund". But after some thought, I decided that I would prefer to call it.... "Mickey's Salute To George Fund". It's different and to the point of fact. I also intend to ask if my donation can go directly toward the shark exhibit.
You can go to this URL to check out the aquarium : http://www.aqua.org
I hope you might consider a donation to The National Aquarium. If you can't afford much, give five dollars. It's tax-deductible. :)
Thank you for your time.
~Barb Ferrante, aka Salty~
chilly - 04 Nov 2003 03:27 GMT > Email sent to me is not deemed confidential. Here is the repost that she > bcc'd to me: Regardless of what you think of what Salty said, why ever would you want a grieving young woman to see it? If you cared so much about her feelings, you would have been trying to protect her from it, not expose her to it.
If you had a problem with what Salty had to say, you could email her privately and take her to task for it.
Dan Bracuk - 04 Nov 2003 07:02 GMT "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
:Regardless of what you think of what Salty said, why ever would you want a :grieving young woman to see it? If you cared so much about her feelings, you :would have been trying to protect her from it, not expose her to it. I was under the impression that someone had already forwarded it to Kimber.
Dan Bracuk If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure. The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
chilly - 04 Nov 2003 04:46 GMT > "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> pounded away at his keyboard resulting > in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I was under the impression that someone had already forwarded it to > Kimber. My comments are addressed to all involved that chose to expose her to it.
Kimber - 04 Nov 2003 10:20 GMT > > "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> pounded away at his keyboard resulting > > in: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > My comments are addressed to all involved that chose to expose her to it. They had and will hold eternally grateful. If she wants to write things that she doesn't want me to see -- she need to do it on paper. I have enough friends supporting me that they will do what they can to help. They know I don't do the high school two faaced games... and i expect people to be the same way iin return.
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 18:54 GMT >>>"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> pounded away at his keyboard resulting >>>in: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > don't do the high school two faaced games... and i expect people to be the > same way iin return. One of the reasons I always liked and respected you and Mickey in REAL Life un-like what it MIGHT have apeared to others in here. As you both well knew.
Safe Trip L8R
Curtis - 05 Nov 2003 02:03 GMT > My comments are addressed to all involved that chose to expose her to it. I'd like to make a few choice additions to all your comments, beyond well said......but I won't......here
Curtis
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 13:41 GMT > "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> pounded away at his keyboard resulting > in: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- They HAD. Safe Diving.
L8R
Kimber - 04 Nov 2003 10:18 GMT > Regardless of what you think of what Salty said, why ever would you want a > grieving young woman to see it? If you cared so much about her feelings, you > would have been trying to protect her from it, not expose her to it. > > If you had a problem with what Salty had to say, you could email her > privately and take her to task for it. Well he wasn't the one who emailed it to me. A few others actully did because they felt that I shoulld know what I am dealing with. That thought the mail was rude, tasteless etc...
chilly - 04 Nov 2003 03:53 GMT > Email sent to me is not deemed confidential. (snip) By the way, you might want to make sure that you let all of your friends and acquaintances know that you don't consider anything sent to you in email, as confidential.
Should serve to cut down quite a bit of your personal correspondence.
Calamari - 04 Nov 2003 07:30 GMT > > Email sent to me is not deemed confidential. (snip)
> By the way, you might want to make sure that you let all of your friends and > acquaintances know that you don't consider anything sent to you in email, as > confidential.
> Should serve to cut down quite a bit of your personal correspondence. I have a feeling that he just did.
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 15:07 GMT >>>Email sent to me is not deemed confidential. (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I have a feeling that he just did. I for 1 would NOT have a problem with that. Way I look at it is if I can't say it to the person i should NOT say it behind their back OR in private.
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 08:26 GMT > I for 1 would NOT have a problem with that. Way I look at it is if I > can't say it to the person i should NOT say it behind their back OR in > private. Another lie?
Geez, jackie, you have to keep your lies STRAIGHT.
That WAY, you're simply dishonest, rather than SIMPLE and dishonest...
 Signature "Let's roll!" -Todd Beamer, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Limey Dave - 04 Nov 2003 20:54 GMT > I for 1 would NOT have a problem with that. Way I look at it is if I > can't say it to the person i should NOT say it behind their back OR in > private. It's quite clear that you cannot think beyond your next keystroke.
Dave.
Crownfield - 05 Nov 2003 04:14 GMT > > I for 1 would NOT have a problem with that. Way I look at it is if I > > can't say it to the person i should NOT say it behind their back OR in > > private. > > It's quite clear that you cannot think beyond your next keystroke. and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award" !!
> Dave. Limey Dave - 05 Nov 2003 16:27 GMT > > > I for 1 would NOT have a problem with that. Way I look at it is if I > > > can't say it to the person i should NOT say it behind their back OR in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award" !! Why, I'm just going to have to clear a shelf.
Dave.
Jack Farmer - 03 Nov 2003 12:40 GMT > ...what you choose to do with your own money is your own business. > It's in appalling taste to share your choice, in the terms you did, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 'The avalanche has already started > It is too late for the pebbles to vote' I received a copy of that from another source. 1 point needs correcting in it.
The channel was NOT mine as i stated from day 1.
2. I NEVER ONCE Kicked Hog & Kimber from that channel.
3. I at one time early on booted Mickey BUT it was ONLY a temporary matter NOT perment as was suggested and claimed in the letter.
It occurred to me if there were that many inaccurate pieces of info in that 1 part how many others were also slightly skewed.
It seems that even after Hog is gone some will NOT drop their real OR perceived complaints about him.
Safe Diving.
L8R
Curtis - 03 Nov 2003 05:52 GMT Jack, how about shutting the f.ck up!
Keep private email private!
Curtis
Michael Ross - 03 Nov 2003 06:22 GMT >Jack, how about shutting the f.ck up! > >Keep private email private! > >Curtis To be fair, he hasn't quoted the email directly (something I was also careful to avoid), but he did publically correct errors of fact in an email which, whilst private, was sent BCC to many rec.scuba regulars.
I don't consider this unreasonable, or a breach of netiquette.
Mike http://www.corestore.org
'The avalanche has already started It is too late for the pebbles to vote'
Jack Farmer - 03 Nov 2003 13:36 GMT >>Jack, how about shutting the f.ck up! >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 'The avalanche has already started > It is too late for the pebbles to vote' Thank you. My POINT exactally.
When someone gives out info YOU are or WERE involved it becomes a part of YOUR business.
IF I'd not been mentioned in it, I'd have said NOTHING about it unless asked.
Safe Dining.
L8R
Calamari - 03 Nov 2003 22:57 GMT > but he did publically correct errors of fact in an > email which, No. He did not.
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 07:15 GMT >>but he did publically correct errors of fact in an >>email which, > > No. He did not. Sure did minus the spin.
Calamari - 04 Nov 2003 06:36 GMT > >>but he did publically correct errors of fact in an > >>email which, > > > > No. He did not.
> Sure did minus the spin. No, Jack. You did not. Just why was Hog calling you a liar ??
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 13:44 GMT >>>>but he did publically correct errors of fact in an >>>>email which, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, Jack. You did not. Fraid I did. Your lack of understanding of the FACTS in the situation do NOT alter the facts.
Just why was Hog calling you a liar ??
maybe for the same reason he called you a BITCH the night you huffed off.
Does that make you one?
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 07:54 GMT > Fraid I did. Your lack of understanding of the FACTS in the situation do > NOT alter the facts. It's hard to COMPETE without CREDIBILITY, isn't it, JACKY?
 Signature "C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?" -Sergeant Major Dan Daly
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 15:14 GMT > € Fraid I did. Your lack of understanding of the FACTS in the situation do > € NOT alter the facts. > > It's hard to COMPETE without CREDIBILITY, isn't it, JACKY? I'm sorry is there some sort of competition going on here?
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 08:32 GMT > > It's hard to COMPETE without CREDIBILITY, isn't it, JACKY? > > I'm sorry is there some sort of competition going on here? NO, honey, YOU'VE never been any competition.
 Signature "We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 13:54 GMT >>>>but he did publically correct errors of fact in an >>>>email which, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, Jack. You did not. Just why was Hog calling you a liar ?? I'm si=urprized ya just CAN"T give it up. Even after all this time you are STILL trrying to control that chat channel and make it whjat YOU wanted rather than what it was a free for all no holds barred anything goes no rules and NO owners.
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 07:55 GMT > I'm si=urprized ya just CAN"T give it up. Even after all this time you > are STILL trrying to control that chat channel and make it whjat YOU > wanted rather than what it was a free for all no holds barred anything > goes no rules and NO owners. Gee, jackie, with NO owners, HOW could YOU give it to KIMBER?
Busted again, bitch.
 Signature "I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it." -Tom Burnett, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 15:15 GMT > € I'm si=urprized ya just CAN"T give it up. Even after all this time you > € are STILL trrying to control that chat channel and make it whjat YOU > € wanted rather than what it was a free for all no holds barred anything > € goes no rules and NO owners. > > Gee, jackie, with NO owners, HOW could YOU give it to KIMBER? Gave her the domain name. That I owned. Wrong again.
> Busted again, bitch. Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 08:33 GMT > Gave her the domain name. That I owned. Wrong again. LOST the bbs, lost control, lost your laugh, lost the domain name.
WHAT'S left, jackie?
 Signature "C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?" -Sergeant Major Dan Daly
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 15:39 GMT > € Gave her the domain name. That I owned. Wrong again. > > LOST the bbs, was NOT a BBS. lost control, Never WANTED control. lost your laugh, NOPOE.
>lost the domain name. Nope gave it to a friend.
> WHAT'S left, jackie? Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 12:28 GMT > > LOST the bbs, > was NOT a BBS. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >lost the domain name. > Nope gave it to a friend. Geez, jackie, calm down. Take a pill.
It's just not significant.
It never was.
 Signature "Let's roll!" -Todd Beamer, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 21:48 GMT > € > LOST the bbs, > € was NOT a BBS. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It never was. Must be MASSIFLY significant to YOU as YOU are the one keeps gretting it incorrect and argueing about it.
haha
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 21:16 GMT > > > > LOST the bbs, > > > was NOT a BBS. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Must be MASSIFLY significant to YOU as YOU are the one keeps gretting it > incorrect and argueing about it. Oh, we're not incorrect, jackie.
The bbs is really dead.
Really.
 Signature "We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 06:06 GMT > € > € > LOST the bbs, > € > € was NOT a BBS. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The bbs is really dead. other than the fact it was NOT a BBS. b
> Really. Jammer Six - 05 Nov 2003 01:53 GMT > > The bbs is really dead. > > > other than the fact it was NOT a BBS. > b Other than the fact?
It's dead, jackie. Time to let it go.
 Signature "We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 12:03 GMT > € > The bbs is really dead. > € > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's dead, jackie. Time to let it go. No matter hOW many time ya try to twist it into something it was NOT and was never intended to be it will NOT make it so.
Jammer Six - 05 Nov 2003 05:16 GMT > > It's dead, jackie. Time to let it go. > No matter hOW many time ya try to twist it into something it was NOT and > was never intended to be it will NOT make it so. Let it go, jackie.
You'll feel better, and you'll begin to heal.
Then again, probably not...
 Signature "C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?" -Sergeant Major Dan Daly
chilly - 05 Nov 2003 05:23 GMT > ? > It's dead, jackie. Time to let it go. > ? No matter hOW many time ya try to twist it into something it was NOT and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Then again, probably not... I don't think a gash in the head like that will ever heal over.
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 12:43 GMT >>? > It's dead, jackie. Time to let it go. >>? No matter hOW many time ya try to twist it into something it was NOT and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't think a gash in the head like that will ever heal over. Well at least we know why YOUR so called mouth keeps running. hahaha
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 12:38 GMT > € > It's dead, jackie. Time to let it go. > € No matter hOW many time ya try to twist it into something it was NOT and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Then again, probably not... damn i HOPE not. haha
Calamari - 04 Nov 2003 19:12 GMT > I'm si=urprized ya just CAN"T give it up. Even after all this time you > are STILL trrying to control that chat channel and make it whjat YOU > wanted rather than what it was a free for all no holds barred anything > goes no rules and NO owners. You're babbling Jack. I left your channel and never set foot in it again. That certainly doesn't sound like "even after all this time" I'm still trying to control it.
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 05:56 GMT >>I'm si=urprized ya just CAN"T give it up. Even after all this time you >>are STILL trrying to control that chat channel and make it whjat YOU [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > again. That certainly doesn't sound like "even after all this time" > I'm still trying to control it. Twisting the facts etc.
Jammer Six - 05 Nov 2003 01:51 GMT > Twisting the facts etc. Everyone does that to you, don't they, jackie?
 Signature "Let's roll!" -Todd Beamer, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Jack Farmer - 05 Nov 2003 12:01 GMT Nope
> € Twisting the facts etc. > > Everyone does that to you, don't they, jackie? Jack Farmer - 03 Nov 2003 13:05 GMT > Jack, how about shutting the f.ck up! > > Keep private email private! > > Curtis I personaly find it distastful for a person to be 1 way in public and another wsay in e-mail.
Another term for that is 2 faced.
That earns NO respect from me and is treated accordingly.
Maybe YOU see nothing wrong with THAT kinda thing. I see a LOT.
One of the mai n reasons I do NOT spend much time in here.
Safe Diving.
L8R
Curtis - 03 Nov 2003 06:16 GMT > > Jack, how about shutting the f.ck up! > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > One of the mai n reasons I do NOT spend much time in here. I am not agreeing or disagreeing.
Just shut the f.ck up here, you've probably already done damage beyond your little feelings being tweaked.
Defending you "Honor" at all costs is distasteful to me, how's that?
Curtis
Jack Farmer - 03 Nov 2003 13:24 GMT >>>Jack, how about shutting the f.ck up! >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Curtis Sorry you SEEM to have an impression I'm defending something.
100% incorrect.
I have NO feelings on this subject as this newsgroup is of no real interest to me other that a way to kill time when i have NOTHING bettewr to do like take a sh.t. haha
ONLY correcting the misstated facts. Of stuff I was supposed to have done.
Try re-reading it THIS time for comprehension.
Safe Diving.
L8R
Curtis - 03 Nov 2003 06:32 GMT > I have NO feelings (snipped as a deliberate misquote) So I see......
Curtis
Calamari - 03 Nov 2003 22:49 GMT I will not address the email with you here Jack. But I will address the following comments you made :
> The channel was NOT mine as i stated from day 1. Who's was it Jack ?? Please don't say that you put it up and then backed off from it. That's not a fact because you had the ultimate say in everything that happened there from the time it opened until the time it closed. We didn't. You did. That makes it YOUR channel, Jack.
> 2. I NEVER ONCE Kicked Hog & Kimber from that channel. > 3. I at one time early on booted Mickey BUT it was ONLY a temporary > matter NOT perment as was suggested and claimed in the letter. Your #3 point conflicts with your #2 point. It also conflicts with an email that you sent to John Francis and I and then found necessary to post here publicly to the NG. I'm speaking of this one below. Hog's reply to you follows.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3E8CE262.4080705%40ma il.thecrusaderbbs.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26 q%3Djack%2Bfarmer%2Byou%2Bwere%2Bright%2B%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
From: Jack Farmer (jacknospam@mail.thecrusaderbbs.com) Subject: [Fwd: Jack Farmer and cross posting bullshit] View this article only Newsgroups: rec.scuba Date: 2003-04-04 01:38:52 PST
Well you two were RIGHT I was wrong. I should have listened to ya way back when. From here on out neither Hog or Kimber will be allowed any op privileges on any server I'm running.
I hate the idea of having to put in rules BUT this is what happens I guess when ya let it run it's self.
Neither Hog NOR Kimber have been speaking for anyone but themselves on any discussions they may have had with you. <snipped> ---------
From: AirHog (mickey@tekdiveguy.com) Subject: Re: [Fwd: Jack Farmer and cross posting bullshit] View this article only Newsgroups: rec.scuba Date: 2003-04-04 04:07:54 PST
> Neither Hog NOR Kimber have been speaking for anyone but themselves on > any discussions they may have had with you.
> I'm more sorry than you guy's can ever know that it did NOT work out as > i'd hoped a free site that ran it's self with out needing to be > moderated to keep it peaceful. When I get to the computers I can do it from I will post logs of your PM's from Kimber and myself Jack and prove you to a bumbling liar. I will make one post maybe two, truly showing your level of imcompetance and then I will address your server no more.
As quite frankly, based on your traffic since day one--not many around here give two f.cks about your room
You misunderstood someone the other day in a chat that lead to all of this--you flip flop and fly on people who you have gone out of your way to try to tget to be your friend.
You were a jackass to post what you did about Rich. You were a jackass for f.cking with all those bots You were a jackass in misunderstanding a statement. You were a jackass for posting all the sh.t about the server.
You are a jackass for general purposes.
AirHog --------
Jack... you'll never get off the fence, will you ?? It's really a shame. ~Salty, CID~
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 07:15 GMT > I will not address the email with you here Jack. But I will address > the following comments you made : [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > time it closed. We didn't. You did. That makes it YOUR channel, > Jack. Wrong I started it assigned op's and DID turn it over to them. In SPITE of what you THOUGHT that WAS the way it WAS.
>>2. I NEVER ONCE Kicked Hog & Kimber from that channel. >>3. I at one time early on booted Mickey BUT it was ONLY a temporary [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > post here publicly to the NG. I'm speaking of this one below. Hog's > reply to you follows. Not really it was a tem thing NOT as i said perment.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3E8CE262.4080705%40ma il.thecrusaderbbs.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26 q%3Djack%2Bfarmer%2Byou%2Bwere%2Bright%2B%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > op > privileges on any server I'm running. Non op does NOT mean Kicked off. Just meand NON OP.
> I hate the idea of having to put in rules BUT this is what happens I > guess when ya let it run it's self. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > shame. > ~Salty, CID~ Calamari - 04 Nov 2003 06:56 GMT > > I will not address the email with you here Jack. But I will address > > the following comments you made : [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > time it closed. We didn't. You did. That makes it YOUR channel, > > Jack.
> Wrong I started it assigned op's and DID turn it over to them. In SPITE > of what you THOUGHT that WAS the way it WAS. Jack...if that really was the way it was... then all those ppl wouldn't have left the channel when I resigned my ops there. It was your channel. You made decisions and the decision to allow chaos and rude behavior was one of them that didn't work in your favor.
> >>2. I NEVER ONCE Kicked Hog & Kimber from that channel. > >>3. I at one time early on booted Mickey BUT it was ONLY a temporary [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > post here publicly to the NG. I'm speaking of this one below. Hog's > > reply to you follows.
> Not really it was a tem thing NOT as i said perment. Temporary, permanent, whatever. It happened.
> > Well you two were RIGHT I was wrong. I should have listened to ya way > > back when. From here on out neither Hog or Kimber will be allowed any > > op > > privileges on any server I'm running.
> Non op does NOT mean Kicked off. Just meand NON OP. I'll agree that I errored in terminology.
Soooo.... out of the things that you felt I was wrong about :
1. I said it was your channel. I was speaking the truth. It was.
2. I said the you kicked Hog and Kimber. I was partly right in that you kicked Hog but not Kimber. I used the wrong terminology though and should have said that you took away their privledges to be operators on YOUR channel. Come to think of it Jack... if the ops had the power as you claim, then why wasn't the decision to remove Hog and Kimber as ops left up to a vote by the ops ?? Why was it your decision ?? Ya think maybe because it was YOUR channel and that's simply another example of the fact that it was ?!!!!
chilly - 04 Nov 2003 07:08 GMT (snip)> decision ?? Ya think maybe because it was YOUR channel and that's
> simply another example of the fact that it was ?!!!! Why are you having this conversation? This is a prime example of wrestling with pigs and coming up muddy.
DavidM - 04 Nov 2003 07:40 GMT > (snip)> decision ?? Ya think maybe because it was YOUR channel and that's > > simply another example of the fact that it was ?!!!! > > Why are you having this conversation? This is a prime example of wrestling > with pigs and coming up muddy. Exactly. Farmer Jack is an idiot, and a good rule-of-thumb is not to argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience. In defence of Farmer Jack tho, he has learned to bottom post and snip stale content, so he's not a dead loss.
Cheers David M
Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 07:50 GMT > In defence of Farmer Jack tho, he has learned to bottom post > and snip stale content, so he's not a dead loss. Yes, he is.
Even protozoa learn through repetition.
 Signature "We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
DavidM - 04 Nov 2003 08:16 GMT > ? In defence of Farmer Jack tho, he has learned to bottom post > ? and snip stale content, so he's not a dead loss. > > Yes, he is. Hmmm...you may be right. He *did* learn to bottom post, and you gotta give him something for that though.
Cheers David M
Jack Farmer - 04 Nov 2003 15:12 GMT Gee so whats YOUR excuse????
> € In defence of Farmer Jack tho, he has learned to bottom post > € and snip stale content, so he's not a dead loss. > > Yes, he is. > > Even protozoa learn through repetition. Jammer Six - 04 Nov 2003 08:31 GMT > Gee so whats YOUR excuse???? Oh, come on, slut, even black did better than that.
Oh, WAIT, black was SMARTER!
HAHAHAHAHA!
 Signat |
|