Google| Subject | Re: Picture of a CSMA regular? |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/29/2004 17:15 (04/29/2004 17:15) |
| Message-ID | <mr-4FDC9B.17151929042004@news.fu-berlin.de> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Nash*ton |
In article <cgWjc.31646$Np3.1127631@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nash*ton <Nash@nash.com>wrote:
I didn't suggest you do - I was merely curious.Nash*tonSandmanNash*tonSteve Mackay§¼¡ÝSandman
Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this NG....
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I believed you.
What do you think the "Hacking attempt" post was about. It was nothing but a troll to discredit Steve C. Or myself. No matter, I doubt ANYONE believes him.
Birds of a feather... I see your Carroll's SP now, his apologist and his advocate. No surprise there, it's just seldom that one sees a mob-like mentality in a group of ...2 people..;)
Funny, that's just how many you and Michael are. :)
Did you ever stop to notice that you are the only one in the -entire group- that is coming to Michaels support?
Nope, I don't need validation.
You seem to need it and project this upon me.From who would I need validation?
So let me get this straight. In order for you to agree/disagree with somebody, do you make sure your opinion is in tandem with the others?NO, not at all - but I wouldn't be blind to their opinions - are you?
Interesting, to say the least.I think so too.
Surely you understood exactly what I meant regardless of whether you agree with the label I choose to place upon the people you often find on the other end of your arguments - right?SandmanNash*ton
I know why of course - he just happens to have the same enemies as you do - you have made it quite clear that you in no shape for form actually support Michaels -views-.
Enemies? LOL I hardly take anything posted in this ng seriously enough to consider anybody an enemy...
-- Sandman[.net]
04/28/2004-
