Subject:
|
Re: Peeron inventories
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:12:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5195 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > > And yet one of the corrections you made has already been shown to be wrong and
> > > maybe a second one too (I don't know and I don't care if it is or isn't). Most
> > > people might take that as a sign that possibly their checking wasn't quite as
> > > accurate[1] as they thought it was. And yet I see no such admission from you.
> > >
> > > I think you must be switched on to the pissed off position, John.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > [1] Note I use accurate here and not thorough. I have no doubts you are thorough
> > > but given set variations, incorrect instructions and other possibilities neither
> > > does it make you accurate.
> >
> > If anyone is spring loaded to the piss off position it is you. Regardless of
> > what the page number was, the inventory is incorrect. Valium might be in the
> > future for you, or high blood pressure. You really need to calm down. Let's
> > remove all emotions here. The facts are that the inventory is incorrect and it
> > has not been corrected. No nastiness, no emotion, nothing but facts. That
> > inventory and many more are incorrect and have been for a very long time.
> > This is not the Bible or Ten Commandments we are talking about, just an
> > inventory.
>
> Such a vast banquet of irony in so few words.
>
> > I started long ago pointing this out, October 2006. The only reason
> > I posted to Lugnet is that people should know that they are incorrect and if
> > people do, maybe they will update them. I have nothing to gain by this, Peeron
> > does if they care. So rant and rave all you want but I think that it is
> > misdirected. You got a bad case of kill the messenger.
> >
> > And you do not need to send me any more e-mails with pictures. You are taking
> > this a bit too far.
> > John P
>
> I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to show one
> of these 'emails with pictures' that you refer to? Since I don't remember ever
> sending you an email in my life I find the accusation utterly bizarre.
>
> Tim
I thought that I was answering David's e-mail to my e-mail address. Sorry, I am
not too sure how to do all these tree things here and there. It wasn't you, It
was mad David.
John P
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Peeron inventories
|
| --snip-- (...) Such a vast banquet of irony in so few words. (...) I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to show one of these 'emails with pictures' that you refer to? Since I don't remember ever sending you an email in (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
58 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
