Bad Customs experience at Auckland airport

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:05:07 -0500, texan.usenet wrote:

Yawn Frank.
Stop attempting to be a right little dictator.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Jason

Cath,

Against my better judgement I am going to try and engage you and
simply ask you again what you found so interesting about the IP
address of the computer I used to post my original message.

-Emery

wrote in message . ..

Interesting:
Posting ip comes up as:

Server Used: [ whois.apnic.net ]

219.88.94.165 = [ 219-88-94-165.jetstream.xtra.co.nz ]
inetnum: 219.88.0.0 - 219.88.127.255
netname: TIS-NZ
descr: Telecom Internet Services
descr: Auckland
country: NZ
admin-c: IA4-AP
tech-c: IA4-AP
notify:


Cath

Cath,

Against my better judgement I am going to try and engage you and
simply ask you again what you found so interesting about the IP
address of the computer I used to post my original message.

-Emery

wrote in message . ..

Interesting:
Posting ip comes up as:

Server Used: [ whois.apnic.net ]

219.88.94.165 = [ 219-88-94-165.jetstream.xtra.co.nz ]
inetnum: 219.88.0.0 - 219.88.127.255
netname: TIS-NZ
descr: Telecom Internet Services
descr: Auckland
country: NZ
admin-c: IA4-AP
tech-c: IA4-AP
notify:


Cath

wrote:
On 11 Apr 2005 19:54:07 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:
[much deleted]

[Still failing to respond to specific questions.]

For starters, I was replying to the writer. Under no circumstances
was it directed at *you*. YOu chose to read it.

Yes, I did, but you chose to respond in a public forum, so you will
get public responses.

So? Sure it is a public forum. You have the choice to either
read it for what it's worth and walk away i.e. ignore, but no, Frank
being Frank, is not able to do that.

Yes, I can ignore (what you wrote), but I don't want to, hence I
respond. And talking about ignoring: You could do the same, but your are
apparently unwilling or/and unable to do so. So, as another poster said:
Pot, kettle, black.

So if you don't like what I write, then just use a mental or real
killfile and don't respond. Quite simple really.

[deleted]

Not having a hotel booking is neither here nor there.

What does that mean?

You know exactly what I mean Frankl.

No, I don't. That's why I am asking the question.

Oh dumbty doo. Are you **really** that dumb Frank - the one who
makes out they are such a worldly traveler?
You do whatever degree of sanity you may have showed a total
injustice.

Well, it's not really rocket science: Your sentence "Not having a
hotel booking is neither here nor there." does not really mean a thing
to me (in this context), so I ask you what you mean by it. Instead of
answering, you dodge and insult. And in some strang way that makes me
the one with the problem?

Perhaps another reader would be so nice as to explain what is the
meaning of that sentence (in this context).

[deleted]

He called it "wretched" *after* your "Interesting: Posting ip comes up
as: ..." response. So exactly *what* was "interesting" about his posting
IP?

[Second failure to answer a specific question.]

There's nothing in the above worth wasting my time answering you
Frank.

Translation: "It was a dumb remark, but I'll be damned if I'll admit
it." ( Your failure to answer similar questions from the original
poster.)

As to doing their job. Probably they were, but do you consider a *2
hour* detainment/investigation to be normal? I don't.

I don't give a toot what you think as if you didn't know by now Frank.
The authorities have a job to do and I will defend the authorities of
*any* country doing their job.
You on the otherhand, seem to have a problem with that.

No, I don't. Try to read instead of thinking that you know what people
think. The guy was annoyed for being detained/investigated that long. I
would be too (if they had no reason) and so would you.

The guy was detained period *by authorities doing their job*.

True.

You, like me, do not know the TRUE REASONS/S WHY.

True.

All we had was the poster's side of the story.

True. (If we continue like this we might even agree on something.)

It would have been better for the poster to shut up

*Why* should the poster shut up? Because you don't like what he says?

or better still for you to stop defending him.

I didn't/don't defend him and *said so*. Reading/responding_to what
people actually write is not your strongest point, is it?

You know he had and still has the right to make a formal complaint.

True.

Except he hasn't appeared as though he has had the brains to do so.

And there you go again, spoiling your valid point by throwing in yet
another undeserved insult.

[deleted]

BTW, thanks for the promo to Dr - but it doesn't take a PhD to figure
out a header.

No, it doesn't, but composing a sensible response is apparently
somewhat harder.

OMG. Go back and look at the replies you have made including those of
your socket puppet. Of course all your replies to this and
other newsgroups are so bloody perfect aren't they?

Indeed. Thanks for noticing.

LOL. Yeah there's a few there where people have told you not so
politely to go to hell too.

Well, let's make a deal: You name (at least) two, with references
(i.e. Google Groups URL to postings) or eat humble pie. And no, your
partner doesn't count.

Again, why jump on my replies only when there are many others that are
utterly senseless.

Don't be flattered.

Cripes, pass me the bucket.

I don't only jump on your postings. I do the same
for other postings which do not make sense or/and attack a poster for no
good reason, etc..

Oh heffer dust Frank.
Who the hell do you think you are anyway? Usenet's little Hilter
by the sound of it. [More likely a wannabe].

I'm sure the audience can spot a pot when it's so clearly presented to
them.

So once again, Frank has found something to bitch to me about.
The no-brainer replies that often appear here from one particular
contributor are at your level then? Jeeze, you really should
get a *real* life Frank.

And once again Frank, you really really should get a real life...

"get a [real] life" is always such an impressive argument, especially
when repeated like you do. I stand in awe.

BTW your mate cannot be too far away now eh.

My "mate"/"sock puppet" is only in your mind.

Cath

In closing: Remember this one:

.nl

(the *previous* case of you jumping to the wrong conclusions, uttering
unsubstantiated accusations (of forgery), etc.).

wrote:
On 11 Apr 2005 19:54:06 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

wrote:
On 11 Apr 2005 10:00:48 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

wrote:
On 9 Apr 2005 12:29:34 -0700, wrote:

219.88.94.165 = [ 219-88-94-165.jetstream.xtra.co.nz ]
inetnum: 219.88.0.0 - 219.88.127.255
netname: TIS-NZ
descr: Telecom Internet Services
descr: Auckland
country: NZ

yes just another useless Troll, he will go away some day.

Sherlock and Dr. Cath,

What do you find so interesting about me posting about my very bad
customs experience arriving at the *Auckland* airport from a computer
in *New Zealand*? And how does that make me a troll? Perhaps you'll
find that this post comes from a computer in Thailand. Guess what? I
had planned on a month in NZ but that experience spoiled my trip so
badly that I changed my return ticket and flew back just today. I
couldn't get away from that wretched country soon enough!

-Em


Read your own words laddie.

There would be far more than meets the eye *if* you had flown in from
BKK and were so searched.

I feel no need to 'defend' the OP, but:

Please use grownup words (like "other person" in this case) instead of
abbreviations. Abbreviation speak impresses exactly nobody and is
confusing/irritating.

Fair enough. Not exactly the same category [1], but a somewhat valid
point nonetheless. BTW (Oops! :-)), in most cases it means "original
poster", i.e. the poster who posted the first article in the
(sub)thread.

Just wondering, is it OK (Oops!) to say "NZ"? :-)

[1] An airport code is not really an abbreviation and "OP" is general
Usenet speak, i.e. relevant to/on this medium, instead of (airline)
industry speak, i.e. not applicable to this medium/group/thread/etc..

Yawn Frank.
Stop attempting to be a right little dictator.

Try to lighten up and try to *read*, will you? (Also the smileys were
a dead giveaway.) I was actually acknowledging your point ("Fair enough.
.... a somewhat valid point nonetheless."), but you are apparently so
pre-occupied with me being the bad guy that you don't see/realize it
when you 'score a point'. Rather a waste of your - I must say somewhat
cute - point.

Hey, Usenet *has* changed over the years ya know.

True,

You cannot control what is written and how.

but not in this sense. Anyway: No, I can't and I don't want to. Your
point being?

Must **** you off hugely.....

Google (Groups) is the audience's friend (but probably not yours).

Cath

On 12 Apr 2005 14:01:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:
[msge snipped]

Well, let's make a deal: You name (at least) two, with references
(i.e. Google Groups URL to postings) or eat humble pie. And no, your
partner doesn't count.

In a previous posting in this thread, you made the statement about
posting in a public forum.

I had not even thought of, let alone considered anything written by
my partner. However, as you have stated this is a public forum, it
is therefore not up to you to dictate to me what I can and cannot use.

Cath

wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005 14:01:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:
[msge snipped]

Well, let's make a deal: You name (at least) two, with references
(i.e. Google Groups URL to postings) or eat humble pie. And no, your
partner doesn't count.

In a previous posting in this thread, you made the statement about
posting in a public forum.

I had not even thought of, let alone considered anything written by
my partner. However, as you have stated this is a public forum, it
is therefore not up to you to dictate to me what I can and cannot use.

Clever (not) snippage!

The *point* is that you wrote:

LOL. Yeah there's a few there where people have told you not so
politely to go to hell too.

I.e. you claim that people (i.e. more than one, hence my requirement
for (at least) two) have told me to go to hell.

IMO this did not happen [1], so the burden of proof is, as I said, on
you.

And of course your partner is disqualified [2]. You can't be so dim
that you don't realize that.

But feel free to include your partner. That just ups the requirement
to three.

Put in other words: Yes, you can indeed use/post what you like, but
your audience decides what it considers acceptable and what not. Bummer
isn't it?

[1] Not in this group, i.e. the group in which both you and I
participate. Other groups are not relevant (unless perhaps we both
participate in such group, which, AFAIK, results in the null set).

[2] We *know* already that he has flamed your 'opponents', including
me, while in at least one case, quite sneakily, not revealing his
relation to you. I guess Google (Groups) was also not his friend.

How about any one of those guys clubbing defenseless baby seal to death.

I once crossed into Canada from Tok Alaska to Beaver Creek Yukon,
Canadian customs at border "any firearms" "no" "any spirits" "no but we
have a few beers" "thats alright" because we were on motorcycles she
asked "do you know Joe ***** riding a Harley" we say no and she replies
well if you see him tell him that one of his panniers is back at the
post office in Tok. Several weeks later crossing the border into BC
from WA (we ferried down to Bellingham) it was a nightmare. It really
depends on who you happen to get while crossing and the mood their in.
Ed in Perth
PS if David wants to see morons he should spend a bit of time in Bali
with the Aussie Yobbo class.

wrote in news:1113812678.426733.31660
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

How about any one of those guys clubbing defenseless baby seal to
death.


Yeah, that happens nearly every time we get to the airport too.
(Relevance?)

As it happens, many people including myself, are appalled by the killing
of wild life of any type, including elk and deer and bear which are
mostly the targets of well-healed Americans who come up north to
slaughter their victims. (End of off topic rant)