From: Fran on

"petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25365f02dbe5afbe9898f3(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <1j77lhz.1vkbuhc16h66udN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, The
> Older Gentleman says...
>>
>> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > My contempt for fran is due to the fact that he jumps on your bandwagon
>> > quite a bit. Its why I have reasoned that you two are in fact the same
>> > person.
>>
>> It's possible. I don't think so, though. Spacker is a standard Usenet
>> nutjob, size twelve.
>
> Only a size twelve?
>
>> Fran is just a nasty piece of work.


Interesting comment. I don't think I'm the one who's boasted of behaving
unethically here. And that remark is for both of you.


From: petrolcan on
In article <hahjds$8qn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>
> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.25365f02dbe5afbe9898f3(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article <1j77lhz.1vkbuhc16h66udN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>, The
> > Older Gentleman says...
> >>
> >> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > My contempt for fran is due to the fact that he jumps on your bandwagon
> >> > quite a bit. Its why I have reasoned that you two are in fact the same
> >> > person.
> >>
> >> It's possible. I don't think so, though. Spacker is a standard Usenet
> >> nutjob, size twelve.
> >
> > Only a size twelve?
> >
> >> Fran is just a nasty piece of work.
>
> Interesting comment. I don't think I'm the one who's boasted of behaving
> unethically here. And that remark is for both of you.

You mention ethics yet you are quite happy to throw around an accusation
of fraud?
From: Fran on

"petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.253664465456f3459898f6(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <hahjds$8qn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>>
>> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.25365f02dbe5afbe9898f3(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> > In article <1j77lhz.1vkbuhc16h66udN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>,
>> > The
>> > Older Gentleman says...
>> >>
>> >> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > My contempt for fran is due to the fact that he jumps on your
>> >> > bandwagon
>> >> > quite a bit. Its why I have reasoned that you two are in fact the
>> >> > same
>> >> > person.
>> >>
>> >> It's possible. I don't think so, though. Spacker is a standard Usenet
>> >> nutjob, size twelve.
>> >
>> > Only a size twelve?
>> >
>> >> Fran is just a nasty piece of work.
>>
>> Interesting comment. I don't think I'm the one who's boasted of behaving
>> unethically here. And that remark is for both of you.
>
> You mention ethics yet you are quite happy to throw around an accusation
> of fraud?

Absolutely. I believe your actions were unethical. I am criticising what you
state you did. I do not however make any assumptions about your personal
characteristics, race, sexuality, religion, or whatever. Nor do I use any
such possibly fallacious facts as a stick to beat you with. If I knew such
things, I would. not use them, as I consider that practice unacceptable in
the main. The only time I think that say, religion may be relevant is if
someone claims to be a devout Christian, let's say, and behaves in a non
Christian manner. But that is a specific, not a generalisation.

I've no idea whether you - or others - are a "nasty piece of work" to other
people when you interact with them. I judge the behaviour I see here.


From: petrolcan on
In article <hahv4q$ngc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>
> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message

> > You mention ethics yet you are quite happy to throw around an accusation
> > of fraud?
>
> Absolutely. I believe your actions were unethical.

And fraudulent, don't forget you accused me of that too.

> I am criticising what you state you did.

Which was selling a well described camera *box*.

> I do not however make any assumptions about your personal
> characteristics, race, sexuality, religion, or whatever.

I am well aware that you didn't. It was spacker that has drawn in the
race and religion card. Again.

> Nor do I use any
> such possibly fallacious facts as a stick to beat you with. If I knew such
> things, I would. not use them, as I consider that practice unacceptable in
> the main.

If you find the practice so unacceptable why is it that you let spacker
go unchallenged when he does so? It just doesn't add up.

> I've no idea whether you - or others - are a "nasty piece of work" to other
> people when you interact with them. I judge the behaviour I see here.

I too judge by the behaviour that I see here. I see you defending or
agreeing with spacker on many occassions yet you leave him unchallenged
when it has become quite obvious that he is trying to stir up hatred or
lying.
From: Fran on

"petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2536936fe0a042e99898fa(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <hahv4q$ngc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>>
>> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > You mention ethics yet you are quite happy to throw around an
>> > accusation
>> > of fraud?
>>
>> Absolutely. I believe your actions were unethical.
>
> And fraudulent, don't forget you accused me of that too.
>
>> I am criticising what you state you did.
>
> Which was selling a well described camera *box*.

I'd debate the use of the term well described. And you kept the money, by
your own admission. I believe you were foolish and ill-advised on both
counts.

>
>> I do not however make any assumptions about your personal
>> characteristics, race, sexuality, religion, or whatever.
>
> I am well aware that you didn't. It was spacker that has drawn in the
> race and religion card. Again.

So, was it right for TOG to use Semitism as a means to attack? Or Niel to
use being Muslim? It's not a card, and attitudes like those are not a game.

>
>> Nor do I use any
>> such possibly fallacious facts as a stick to beat you with. If I knew
>> such
>> things, I would. not use them, as I consider that practice unacceptable
>> in
>> the main.
>
> If you find the practice so unacceptable why is it that you let spacker
> go unchallenged when he does so? It just doesn't add up.
>

Why do you not challenge TOG, then? Or Kraftee, say?

You know, I can recall when you were perfectly friendly to me. Come to that,
TOG was positively flirtatious. But, as I said some time ago, once I
challenged the acceptance of certain attitudes and behaviours, I then became
persona non grata. Would it not be better to have a group of individuals,
rather than followers?