From: Humbug on
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:35:11 -0000, "Fran"
<autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:

>
>"Humbug" <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote in message
>news:j94mg5lt5ugfcm94e59g6025hkfbco44h0(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:03:56 GMT, petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8jtlg59b30hpm5l24hn1kj0hq1k95mgtgi(a)4ax.com>, Humbug says...
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:53:54 GMT, petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <1j9l99j.dq9yxq1xw6qvcN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, The
>>>> >Older Gentleman says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > In article <hebdq6$v3o$3(a)aioe.org>, lurker says...
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > as above
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Why is it that you have an obsession with spacker?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > He's gone, hopefully forever.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The other half of the Fracker entity is still posting the same shite,
>>>> >> though.
>>>> >
>>>> >Same as it ever was.
>>>> >
>>>> >> I wonder how proud it feels at having effectively killed what was a
>>>> >> good
>>>> >> thriving and useful ng?
>>>> >
>>>> >Oi! Whilst it may take a while for the thriving to reappear, this NG is
>>>> >still very useful.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly so.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pleased to have been able to take you out of my killfile now that
>>>> you don't have a troll to incense your posts.
>>>
>>>Think about it, why exactly do you think I kept replying?
>>
>> Yes, I know. I just got fed up with reading it.
>>
>>>> This NG will thrive once again with valuable posters who are not
>>>> driven off-topic by malicious interlopers.
>>>>
>>>> I'm only a tiny bit concerned about the way that Fran seems to be
>>>> escalating where Spacker left off ... there always has to be *one*,
>>>> doesn't there?
>>>
>>>fran's time will come.
>>
>> [sigh] Yes, I suppose so :-(
>>
>
>Now who's escalating, hm?

The case rests.

--
Humbug
From: Fran on

"Humbug" <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote in message
news:jd9mg5h7jjkdiiei2p60b39slo239i69qc(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:43:21 -0000, "Fran"
> <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Humbug" <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote in message
>>news:5e4mg5h9ja2q3psnf2khlf25skqq35kr4n(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:43:07 +0000, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk
>>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Humbug <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm only a tiny bit concerned about the way that Fran seems to be
>>>>> escalating where Spacker left off ... there always has to be *one*,
>>>>> doesn't there?
>>>>
>>>>Oh, indeed. I see it played the racist card. Again....
>>>
>>> Hang on, Fran has no reason to be racist, does he?
>>>
>>
>>They are referring, I suspect, to the fact that I stated my objection to
>>racism, when replying to a single quoted post I saw that totally
>>misrepresented my actions. I've chosen to ignore by the judicious use of a
>>killfile the twaddle that I suspect has still been perpetrated here
>>despite
>>all the supposed wishes for peace and harmony. I have had the temerity to
>>post on some EBay topics: dear heaven, the nerve of it.
>>
>>Now, if you are choosing to interpret that as my being racist, then I am
>>deeply saddened and very disappointed to find you are not the person I
>>thought you to be. And pretty disgusted, too. Again, if you did not mean
>>that, my apologies for my own misinterpretation. I do actually hope that I
>>have misunderstood your meaning.
>
> I imagine that you are no more racist than I am. I'm not going to
> bother to search for the threads where it was suggested by you and
> your friend that I was.
>

I have never suggested you were racist. I do, however, think you are
choosing to start an argument with me for some strange and insane reason
that is frankly beyond my comprehension. Unless it's because you actually do
believe I'm someone I'm not, of course - or I am some sort of substitute.

I've tried to remain reasonable with you tonight, but you've tried my
patience too much. Go and find someone else as a target, I'm not answering
any more of this.


From: Fran on

"Humbug" <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote in message
news:kn9mg5hml3ghl8dlnhd5o1hb03mdmchm2l(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:35:11 -0000, "Fran"
> <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Humbug" <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote in message
>>news:j94mg5lt5ugfcm94e59g6025hkfbco44h0(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:03:56 GMT, petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <8jtlg59b30hpm5l24hn1kj0hq1k95mgtgi(a)4ax.com>, Humbug says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:53:54 GMT, petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >In article <1j9l99j.dq9yxq1xw6qvcN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>,
>>>>> >The
>>>>> >Older Gentleman says...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > In article <hebdq6$v3o$3(a)aioe.org>, lurker says...
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > as above
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Why is it that you have an obsession with spacker?
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > He's gone, hopefully forever.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The other half of the Fracker entity is still posting the same
>>>>> >> shite,
>>>>> >> though.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Same as it ever was.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I wonder how proud it feels at having effectively killed what was a
>>>>> >> good
>>>>> >> thriving and useful ng?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Oi! Whilst it may take a while for the thriving to reappear, this NG
>>>>> >is
>>>>> >still very useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pleased to have been able to take you out of my killfile now that
>>>>> you don't have a troll to incense your posts.
>>>>
>>>>Think about it, why exactly do you think I kept replying?
>>>
>>> Yes, I know. I just got fed up with reading it.
>>>
>>>>> This NG will thrive once again with valuable posters who are not
>>>>> driven off-topic by malicious interlopers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm only a tiny bit concerned about the way that Fran seems to be
>>>>> escalating where Spacker left off ... there always has to be *one*,
>>>>> doesn't there?
>>>>
>>>>fran's time will come.
>>>
>>> [sigh] Yes, I suppose so :-(
>>>
>>
>>Now who's escalating, hm?
>
> The case rests.
>

I now understand what you've been doing. And why.

Humbug, you were one of those I at least had respect for. Not any more. I
won't play your mind games, find someone else.


From: lurker on
Fran wrote:

>
> Humbug, I've no clue what your problem is with me, or why you are choosing
> to regurgitate an argument that was best left lie. I do not appreciate the
> constant attacks from you tonight, nor will I perpetuate them. This is
> unworthy of you. Find another target, I won't be yours.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
From: Humbug on
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:20:54 -0000, "Fran"
<autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:

>
>"Humbug" <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote in message
>news:247mg5l7e2tnks1jv46inmg8pbkl1boduq(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:32:38 -0000, "Fran"
>> <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Humbug" <humbug(a)tofee.net> wrote in message
>>>news:8jtlg59b30hpm5l24hn1kj0hq1k95mgtgi(a)4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I'm only a tiny bit concerned about the way that Fran seems to be
>>>> escalating where Spacker left off ... there always has to be *one*,
>>>> doesn't there?
>>>>
>>>
>>>One reply is not an escalation and I take some exception to that
>>>statement.
>>>I replied to a comment about me, as is my right.
>>>
>>>I still have TOG in my killfile, along with his friends, so I don't see
>>>the
>>>vast majority of what they post, thankfully. At the moment, I don't intend
>>>adding you, unless you make more snide comments. If that remark of yours
>>>was
>>>not intended to be snide, then fine, I apologise.
>>>
>> It was not intended to be snide.
>
>It came across that way rather strongly.
>
>>
>> I've read about 1200 posts in the last few days, as I've been out of
>> the loop for a while, and have now had the opportunity to catch up.
>>
>> I did not actually see Spacker's departure, but I have seen a number
>> of yours since.
>>
>> I was disappointed to find that the tone of your posts seems to have
>> amplified his attitude since his "outing", and have noted that other
>> posters have remarked upon this fact.
>
>I have, genuinely, no idea what you are talking about. I have replied to ONE
>post - yesterday, I think - that made a comment about me. I was away all
>last week. Yes, I did object to what happened when he was outed, as you call
>it. After that, if you check properly, you'll find I replied to some Ebay
>related posts over the past weeks, but I've mostly not been around much, as
>I have been out of the country a fair bit.

It is a general impression which I have got from reading a huge number
of posts in a short space of time.
I don't think that you have only replied to one single post out of the
1200 or so which I've read over the last weekend, which go back for
some weeks.

>> Since you seem to need to name a scapegoat - The Older Gentleman (who
>> is actually younger than me) is a poster whom I recognise in this and
>> other newsgroups.
>> I find his posts are often useful and informative; I suppose that I
>> *could* be described as his friend, although I haven't actually met
>> him IRL yet.
>
>Well, having just looked on google groups, I see that he and his sidekick
>are still rather tiresomely obsessed with me, and that means they stay in my
>killfile.

When you google for yourself, you may well find stuff you don't like.

Why *should* anybody be obsessed with you?

>>
>> Killfile me if you will, if you wish to tar me with some kind of
>> supposed brush.
>
>I am, as I said, both surprised and disappointed in you, and this post of
>yours has done nothing to disabuse me of that sentiment.
>
>>
>> I haven't killfiled you yet, as you may be a useful poster in
>> uk.people.consumers.ebay
>>
>
>Thanks, the condescension is appreciated. Perhaps you might care to offer
>useful advice on EBay outages in future, for example, hm?

I wouldn't dream of treading on your toes by repeating the same
information which you have, also provided by eBay themselves.

I shall continue giving whatever advice I can to other eBay users
which they may not be able to find easily, if at all, from eBay.

I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I'll help whenever I
can.

It's a real shame that some people have hijacked this newsgroup for
political purposes.
I hope that you will not allow this either.

--
Humbug
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: Is ebay being slow for you tonight?
Next: Problem with ebay?