Re: (OT) Does this make any sense?

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:27:31 GMT, in a typically unintelligible
sputtering, someone allegedly called, "Sorni"
<[email hidden]>again posted nothing worthwhile:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

\whack
<yawn>

Kook.

Publicly posting private correspondence without the author's consent
is still the scummiest stunt on Usenet.

You have _no_ defense for that, scum.
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

You have _no_ defense for that, scum.

Yawn. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, chum. (As in fish
guts, Putz.)

Sorni said:

Zoot Katz said:

You have _no_ defense for that, scum.

BTW, [censored] face, the part I "published" was not sensitive, private material
in any sense of the phrase. I posted a blatant "Catch 22" wherein someone
had sent me an unwelcomed long, insulting harangue (NOT posted by me) and
then invited me to reply or not, while at the same time saying my e-mail is
blocked. I did NOT post the harangue itself -- in fact the other party
later did that (based on totally misreading something I wrote, BTW -- it
WASN'T directed at him) -- just the contradictory "reply or not, the choice
is yours" which was dishonest, hypocritical AND unfair.

But by all means though keep stirring things up; you can use that gross
appendage you call a nose to do it.

Sorni said:

Sorni said:

Zoot Katz wrote:

Quoted message said:

But by all means though keep stirring things up; you can use that gross
appendage you call a nose to do it.

You're lucky. The class of net-creep that you've been picking up doesn't need or
deserve a reply. By all means feel free to tee off on 'em if you enjoy it, God
knows how I love beating a stank mattress over a fence, but it don't help. I
don't think there's anything you can say about these guys that they didn't
already make clear in the first paragraph.

Ron (I did really like "day late and a toilet roll short."😉