RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 24th 04, 10:38 PM

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON
poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine?

Why do you write of
us in the past tense?

I wrote of you in the past tense, not us.

You did not answer the
question, which was
'why' you used the past
tense.

Why not? You have no future on RRAP. Just go back to being Jimmy
Who. That's anonymous enough.

Miccolis must think he has a "job" on here, trying to establish
a perfect attendence by being here every single day, writing
thousands of words in order to establish a "rep" as a "guru."

Jimmie thinks he "has a future." That be enough rationalization.

Steve has an
unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for
Quitefine.

It seems that 'Steve' is
not the only one :-) :-)

You and Lenover21 have both
tried to be anonymous here.

I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and
it has worked.

You did not clearly
identify yourself.

I didn't intend to fool anyone. I rarely sign off with my name or
call anyway. Haven't for a long time.

Jimmie big on HYPOCRISY, doing it with anonymous UNSIGNED
messages.

Tsk, tsk.

You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my
actions.

Is there something
"nefarious" about
wishing to be
anonymous? We
do not think so.

Steve thinks so, and that's what's important here.

Yell-yell BMOC here, leader of troop, example of modern ham
extra, custodian of good manners and civil discourse.

Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who
asks will be told who I am.

Perhaps. But you
avoid many direct
questions.

So?

Tsk. Jimmy ask anonymous questions, get anonymous replies.

Jimmy not like anyonmous replies but like anonymity. Strange.

Can you explain this?

No.

Perhaps 'Steve' respects our
anonymity. Perhaps he has
changed.

Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off
his meds.

You claim that he is "nuts" and
"on meds". If you believe that
to be true, why do you antagonize
him?

Simple. He won't back off. He doesn't know how to. His handlers
cannot control him. He's a menace.

Yell-yell obsessed with hate of newsgroup enemies.

Yell-yell never retreats...he "advances to the rear." :-)

Tell Jimmy Who that he has to be more firm with his attack dog.

Everyone send Jimmie newspapers...so he can roll them up and
whack whacko attack dog.

Sheesh! All these dual-personalities on rrap.

REAL psychologists would have fun with all that! :-)

"Examples" of what happens to code-tested olde-tyme hammes.