From: petrolcan on
In article <hai0su$5rf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Fran says...
>
> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2536936fe0a042e99898fa(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article <hahv4q$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.

Debate away. The buyer said it was perfecly clear in both the title and
description.

> And you kept the money, by your own admission.

That's funny, I don't recall saying such a thing. So you have used the
logic that because I didn't boast about a refund that I haven't issued
one. That is the type of logic that spacker uses and I really wouldn't
expect it from you. I did say that it was none of your business whether
I refunded or not.

> I believe you were foolish and ill-advised on both counts.

Your opinion and you are quite entitled to it.

> >> 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?

You have to be quite specific and spell out this attack to me. I didn't
see it as an attack.

> Or Niel to
> use being Muslim? It's not a card, and attitudes like those are not a game.

If its not a card then why does the likes of spacker play it when a
thread is not going his way.

> >> 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?

I have challenged TOG. I challenged him when he got suckered into
believing that I had a disabled child. This myth was started by the
poster forexample:johnsmith and perpetuated by spacker in an attempt to
get a rise out of me. In fact spacker has attempted to use in again in a
post from last night.

As far as Kraftee is concerned, I asked him/her about the post (I assume
you mean the one about steamrollers) and I found the response perfectly
reasonable.

> You know, I can recall when you were perfectly friendly to me. Come to that,
> TOG was positively flirtatious.

I can recall that time too.

> But, as I said some time ago, once I
> challenged the acceptance of certain attitudes and behaviours, I then became
> persona non grata.

See this sound just like a spacker line. Challenge certainly but you
just seemed to jump upon the bandwagon that spacker had started.

> Would it not be better to have a group of individuals,
> rather than followers?

It certainly would. Unfortunately, you come accross as one of the
followers.
From: petrolcan on
In article <7mfrc5hamqi17svq7ti5msmnc215bireql(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >In article <79hnc51tc1clo85s08ru9mitlo409vgugh(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
> >>
> >> totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >> >petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You're now saying there is a *wrong* god?
> >> >
> >> >Oh, wow. Now that opens a whole new can of worms :-))
> >>
> >> It seems to be the correct answer, because petrolcan has refused to
> >> reply.
> >
> >I have not refused to reply.
>
> Perhaps your reply got lost in the post?

It didn't.

> >> Presumably because if he answered in the negative it would only
> >> be a matter of time before he provided evidence that would prove his
> >> statement to be a lie.
> >
> >Which statement would that be then?
>
> That it isn't because of choice of god.

Please remember that you were the one to bring god into the discussion.

> >> I knew it would be one of those 3, but my money was on the race issue
> >> because his contempt for Fran only surfaced after the group split
> >> caused by the exposure of the BNP member and his supporters.
> >
> >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.
>
> Are you calling me a jewish muslim?

Where on earth did that come from?
From: petrolcan on
In article <fogrc5h88ks3mt9mmpjpkrrhnbk1e3e7ka(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >In article <qa6nc5th91ciq204jvt760aeh6rnalsa9a(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
> >>
> >> Jim Brittin <pedigreeZZZZ(a)ZZZZoperamail.com [wake up to reply]> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Something just like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/petrolcan/Tokina2035mm?
> >> >> authkey=Gv1sRgCJP4sdHUsLXfNg&feat=directlink
> >> >>
> >> >>It really couldn't be any clearer.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Attractive cat, yours?
> >>
> >> The cat looks like Hitler. No surprise that he would choose it and
> >> that you would find it attractive.
> >
> >Hang on a mo, a few posts ago you were claiming that you couldn't see
> >the pictures yet now you have. Not only that you play the race card out
> >of nowhere yet again.
> >
> >Dear old spacker, you could at least *try* to be consistent in your
> >lies.
>
> Clicked on a link from your box fraud listing.

Liar. You cannot get to the pictures of the tokina lens from there.
From: Fran on

"Kr�ft��" <kr�ft��@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
news:iYidncFCTbMUpFPXnZ2dnUVZ8t-dnZ2d(a)bt.com...

> You should see the depths they have to trawl before they can find anything
> they disagree with, but they'll keep at it if not on here then some other
> newsgroup as they just can't stand being out of the centre off attention.

That's an interesting statement.

Please provide details of the original posts I've made to other newsgroups
which you find objectionable. By original, I don't mean replies to posts
made here that had follow ups including other groups. I'll admit to not
always trimming those, although I perhaps should. Just to make it easier for
you, I do not use any other posting IDs, anonymous remailers or whatevers on
Usenet.


From: petrolcan on
In article <pp8sc5hu62blo0vn3huvpb649svpt26bps(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
>
> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >In article <fogrc5h88ks3mt9mmpjpkrrhnbk1e3e7ka(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
> >>
> >> petrolcan <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >In article <qa6nc5th91ciq204jvt760aeh6rnalsa9a(a)4ax.com>, Spacker says...
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim Brittin <pedigreeZZZZ(a)ZZZZoperamail.com [wake up to reply]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Something just like this:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/petrolcan/Tokina2035mm?
> >> >> >> authkey=Gv1sRgCJP4sdHUsLXfNg&feat=directlink
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>It really couldn't be any clearer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Attractive cat, yours?
> >> >>
> >> >> The cat looks like Hitler. No surprise that he would choose it and
> >> >> that you would find it attractive.
> >> >
> >> >Hang on a mo, a few posts ago you were claiming that you couldn't see
> >> >the pictures yet now you have. Not only that you play the race card out
> >> >of nowhere yet again.
> >> >
> >> >Dear old spacker, you could at least *try* to be consistent in your
> >> >lies.
> >>
> >> Clicked on a link from your box fraud listing.
> >
> >Liar. You cannot get to the pictures of the tokina lens from there.
>
> I know that, because they don't exist. But you can get to the kitler
> photos.

So you are saying that the link to the pictures up there^^^ doesn't work
and there are no pictures if it did work? How was it that you managed to
see the cat pictures then?