On Oct 1, 6:30 am, Alan Pollock wrote:
> In rec.travel.usa-canada - wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 10:10 pm, Alan Pollock wrote:
> > > In rec.travel.usa-canada - wrote:
> > > > On Sep 30, 6:14 pm, Alan Pollock wrote:
> > > > > The impression you guys make? Either very lazy idiots, or very stupid idiots.
>
> > > > > I'm guessing both. Nex
>
> > > > Eat shit, asshole. Your contribution here over three posts: Zip. Why
> > > > are you even bothering to read it.
>
> > > This guy really seems to care. I'm touched. Nex
> > You're "touched" all right. You come in tossing personal insults, you
> > get it back. Tough.
>
> My comment was based in reality.
No, it was based in free-floating anger. Mommy not hug you?
> Sometimes criticism hurts, but the bright
> ones will use it to their advantage.
Calling people you've never exchanged with "lazy" "stupid" and "idiot"
is provocative hostility, not criticism. It says more about you than
me. You deserved my reaction. Get over it.
> Then your question: "Your contribution here over three posts: Zip. Why are you
> even bothering to read it?"
>
> Simply, in order to contribute to a sub-thread, you've got to read it first.
Use and your world will be much simpler.
> Shouldn't need to wade through such massive, eternally repeated verbiage to
> get to a bunch of one-liners at the bottom.
Like yours?
Fact is, some folks like to have the entire conversation readable in
the most recent post. Some don't. Stop trying to be a 'net Nazi, and a
nasty hostile one at that on your first exchange.
> Mentioning it was my contribution,
> and apparently the one-liners are what constitute your idea of a readable,
> worthy-of-contribution sub-thread.
Incorrect. if you'd bother to read.
> Moreover, calling someone a (deserved) idiot is not the same as telling
> someone "Eat shit, asshole".
>
> Unless you can't tell the difference. Nex
No one appointed you 'net Nazi, did they. Take a hike. You're still an
asshole. Wanna be nice? Try it.
|