Quoted message said:In article <[email hidden]>,
Ilsa9 said:Quoted message said:She has lost her marbles because of all the harrassment and has become a
disabled case of OCD. Give it up and killfilter the nut.First Stuart, then Gymmie Bob, are epiphanies being distributed to some of
MHA's cretins?It's disorienting, isn't it? But Gymmie's mention of Jan does bring
to mind a point I've made before -- there is way too much bandwidth
being wasted on m.h.a in rebuttals to Jan. Not that they aren't all
well-deserved, but there's too much repetition. Just off the top of
my head, I am seeing responses to Jan from Mark Probert, Rich, Ilsa,
Tsu, Bronsing, and DC Sessions.That's too many. Can't you guys tag-team or something? My killfile
today knocked out about 30 posts from Jan, but there are at least
three times that many responses to Jan; I'm sure not missing any of
her postings, because the Truth Squad keeps reposting them,
interspersed with their rejoinders, of course.Look, I know it's hard to see such irrationality and not respond, but
you don't *all* have to do it. I know that she's still writing
bizarro responses to my postings, even though she knows I killfiled
her a long time ago (when I plonk someone, I actually do it).-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
Perhaps we should collaborate on a Jan Drew Faq and post it ONCE per day for
any newbies that happen to drop in. In addition, maybe we could assign a
certain person a specific day of the week to be in charge to responding to Jan
and limit that to less than five posts. That way, 6 or less Jan related posts
per day would be created.
Anybody want to try this? Could you imagine Jan's rage when she DEMANDS that
Peter B (or anyone else) answer her malformed & loaded questions and is told
that she'll just have to wait until Peter gets back to her, in 4 days, and only
if he wants to? How about "We're sorry, but the target of your bigotry is
unavailable until Wednesday. Please make a note of it?"
If not, maybe we could do the FAQ and completely boycott her.