«

On 10/19/2011 8:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Rich<> wrote:
>> PeterN<> wrote:
>>>
>>> Answer the question.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't asked any concrete questions, you just engage in rhetoric.
>
>
> PeterN is just a nasty, geriatric troll. He offers absolutely nothing
> here except personal abuse.
>
> So put him in your kill file, and forget about him.
>
> It works for me, except when you reply to him.
>

Point out one undeserved example. I have a low tolerance for bombastic
comments and pompous asses.

--
Peter

On 10/18/2011 9:24 PM, Rich wrote:
> PeterN<> wrote in
> news:4e9e12b8$0$5555$:
>
>> On 10/18/2011 5:48 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 3:33 pm, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2011 2:25 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 18, 1:55 pm, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2011 11:49 AM, John A. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:20:06 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15352799?print=true
>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, you can include a snippet or synopsis if you're so
>>>>>>> inclined. I can't speak for others, but for me this story needs a
>>>>>>> bit more to get me wanting to click the link and read more about
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> If he egged the building or ****ed on their lawn, that would be
>>>>>>> interesting. But I suspect he just had some strong words for
>>>>>>> them, which is not so interesting, so I'm not clicking.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason I'm bothering to write this is that at some point
>>>>>>> one of these link-only posts will actually link to something
>>>>>>> interesting, and I'll never know it. And, as they say, curiosity
>>>>>>> is the first virtue.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's a rare time when a synopsis by rich is reasonably accurate.
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>> B-b-but what are your qualifications for making that statement??!!
>>>>
>>>> A proven ability to read and communicate. We are still waiting for
>>>> you to tell us your qualifications to pontificate. I imagine it will
>>>> be a long wait.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> But back to the subject at hand. IMO, unqualified, they were doing
>>> some kind of fleecing of the company coffers, in preparation for what
>>> I do not know. This smacks of Worldcom and Enron.
>>
>> Answer the question.
>>
>
> You haven't asked any concrete questions, you just engage in rhetoric.


Sound of foot tapping, patiently.


--
Peter

On 10/19/2011 8:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Rich<> wrote:
>> PeterN<> wrote:
>>>
>>> Answer the question.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't asked any concrete questions, you just engage in rhetoric.
>
>
> PeterN is just a nasty, geriatric troll. He offers absolutely nothing
> here except personal abuse.
>
> So put him in your kill file, and forget about him.
>
> It works for me, except when you reply to him.
>
Does personal abuse include challenging the source of your comments? I
guess it's is indeed personal abuse when I pose questions that are
embarrassing to answer.




--
Peter

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:06:29 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 10/18/2011 9:24 PM, Rich wrote:
>> PeterN<> wrote in
>> news:4e9e12b8$0$5555$:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2011 5:48 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> On Oct 18, 3:33 pm, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/18/2011 2:25 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 18, 1:55 pm, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2011 11:49 AM, John A. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:20:06 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>>> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15352799?print=true
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know, you can include a snippet or synopsis if you're so
>>>>>>>> inclined. I can't speak for others, but for me this story needs a
>>>>>>>> bit more to get me wanting to click the link and read more about
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he egged the building or ****ed on their lawn, that would be
>>>>>>>> interesting. But I suspect he just had some strong words for
>>>>>>>> them, which is not so interesting, so I'm not clicking.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only reason I'm bothering to write this is that at some point
>>>>>>>> one of these link-only posts will actually link to something
>>>>>>>> interesting, and I'll never know it. And, as they say, curiosity
>>>>>>>> is the first virtue.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a rare time when a synopsis by rich is reasonably accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>> B-b-but what are your qualifications for making that statement??!!
>>>>>
>>>>> A proven ability to read and communicate. We are still waiting for
>>>>> you to tell us your qualifications to pontificate. I imagine it will
>>>>> be a long wait.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> But back to the subject at hand. IMO, unqualified, they were doing
>>>> some kind of fleecing of the company coffers, in preparation for what
>>>> I do not know. This smacks of Worldcom and Enron.
>>>
>>> Answer the question.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't asked any concrete questions, you just engage in rhetoric.
>
>
>Sound of foot tapping, patiently.

I think he's waiting for you to list your qualifications for
evaluating the qualifications of others to post links to news stories
on usenet.

Or he put a silencer on his plonk-gun.