If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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.). |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
How about any one of those guys clubbing defenseless baby seal to death.
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question about customs in Buenos Aires | [email protected] | Latin America | 10 | February 16th, 2005 10:44 PM |
Bad cruising experience | orange24 | Cruises | 32 | February 12th, 2005 04:15 PM |
Traveling USA-Montreal, Customs? | miles | USA & Canada | 14 | January 20th, 2005 02:54 PM |
My terrible Dragoman experience in Africa | Nadine S. | Africa | 5 | April 26th, 2004 06:54 PM |
Flying over US/Canada boarder = going through US customs? | Fly Guy | Air travel | 16 | January 1st, 2004 01:50 AM |