On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:08:03 -0500, flatfish wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:32:56 +0000, Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:23:16 -0500, flatfish wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:03:39 +0000, Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:38:28 -0500, flatfish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I never said you own the blog.
>>>>> And you know damm well who Rober Parsonage is.
>>>>> He is Roy Culley.
>>>>> That's a given.
>>>>> Google it.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it's only a given with people like you. To the rest of us it's
>>>>merely an unproven supposition.
>>>
>>> There is far more evidence of that then some of the other accusations
>>> you COLA bozos float.
>>
>>Wrong. There is very little if any evidence.
>
> No, you are just in denial.
> The evidence is right below.
>
>>>
>>> here you go binky....
>>>
>>> http://www.webservertalk.com/archive230-2007-5-1904134.html
>>>
>>> And you can add to that the fact that Parsonage appeared right after
>>> Culley made his exit.
>>
>>You think anyone is going to take the word of someone who faked Roy S's
>>name to post a bunch of unsubstantiated tripe? And given the number of
>>Linux-slagging nyms that appear whenever you depart COLA, I wouldn't try
>>that nonsense, either.
>
> You don't have to take the word of whomever posted it, just read the
> links it refers to.
I did. Still no real evidence.
>
> Are you so far in denial that you can't see that there is at least
> some evidence Roy Culley is Robert Parsonage?
Very little. Certainly nothing conclusive.
>
> Come on, get your head out of Schestowitz'a arse and think for
> yourself once in a while.
My head, flatty, is exactly where it should be, and that is not in
*anyone's* reaer end. Kindly keep your fantasies to yourself.
--
Kier
|
|