Should we be suspicious?

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"TrolLisaTroll" <who@Invalid.anywhere.nowhere.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:eijmEnXOJHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> my Mothers favorite sport was the art of the open hand. as she lay dieing,
> she slapped me and said it was time for me to carry on her art. she made
> me promise to use it with out warning on fools and kooks.
> http://little_flower.dogagent.com/
>
> TrolLi
>

"There is no artist who does not like his work praised, and the Divine
Artist of souls is pleased when we do not stop at the exterior, but
penetrating even to the inmost sanctuary which He has chosen for His
dwelling, we admire its beauty."

http://www.littleflower.org/learn/words/others.asp

Please feel free to explore the whole site, Li.

BD

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:ge3jvs$qe$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you can point me in the right direction to ascertain the true
>> credentials of Mr Foldes?
>
> And where are you are going to divulge your private details to identify
> yourself? Usenet is an anarchy. Get used to it. You can't prove that
> a web site have valid information about someone and instead have to
> assign a trust level to it, just like any other venue of news or
> information that comes to you. Why would anyone care about your claims
> regarding Peter Foldes history and behavior when no one can verify who
> you are and your history?
>
> You claimed that Peter lied in some of his posts. Provide proof by
> giving news: URLs or links to Google Groups copies of those posts. Did
> you check his history of posts to see through which newsgroups service
> he repeatedly uses and other header info to determine if those lying
> posts were made by him or an imposter?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/pro...AAqJW8xcoCt4Zf67O3gCP4PkdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q
>
> I took a random sampling of 10 posts from Peter (in newsgroups that I
> visit). One was a jibe and the others were somewhat helpful although
> perhaps a bit terse (whereas, as you can see, I am a bit verbose). That
> was as much effort that I was going to waste in your witchhunt. Prove
> your claim that he lies.
>
> Although I don't bother to participate in such lists, there are those
> that nominate or compile their "kook list". You can only be or pretend
> to be a newbie for so long before the consensus by such folks is that
> you are a troll or kook and you get added to their lists. All you've
> done so far is go around pointing fingers at others. Well, others can
> start pointing fingers at you, too. I'm pretty sure some are now
> considering adding you to their killfiles.

--

I'm still wondering how best to answer you, Vanguard.

In the meantime, here is the full thread (the other was provided simply from
a hasty Google search - my apologies!)

http://www.microsoft.com/communitie...&pt=&catlist=&dglist=&ptlist=&exp=&sloc=en-us

Please also have a look at a recent post I made directly from the Microsoft
site - it appears in Usenet in a newsgroup called
'microsoft.public.security.homeusers'

You will note that I have queried the Microsoft 'look-alike' site here in
this group in a separate post!

Dave

--

 

[~BD~]

Re: Should we be suspicious?


"~BD~" <~BD~@no.mail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:ebJaebbOJHA.4780@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> You will note that I have queried the Microsoft 'look-alike' site here in
> this group in a separate post!



Ooops! I should have been specific - I made that post to the
'microsoft.public.security' group only.

Dave

--