Mark Kent wrote:
> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:11:36 +0000,
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
>>>>>> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
>>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has
>>>>>>> zero to do with the BBC or MS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark has issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
>>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
>>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
>>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
>>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
>>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you
>>>> reply to ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
>>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
>>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
>>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
>>>
>>
>> You *quoted* Kier's reply, stating that he didn't work for the BBC, and
>> yet, in that same message, you claimed he hadn't answered the question
>> of whether he worked for the BBC! your excuse? that he answered the
>> question after you asked it!
>
> I'm getting a bit concerned about you, Jim. This is the second time in
> a month you've made almost the same error. If you look, you will see,
> directly above, that I ask the question, and then he replies with a
> bunch of abuse. I didn't say that he hadn't answered the question (read
> what I say very carefully, please), rather, I quite specifically say
> that the proper response to my question is either Yes or No, not a load
> of trolling abuse.
The proper response to your "questions" is "go suck donkey dicks"
Since when is it up to you to define how people have to answer? Penalty
being a "troll", naturally, because they did not answer to your "standards"
You are an idiot, Mark Kent. And a dishonest twit
--
Tact, n.:
The unsaid part of what you're thinking.
|
|
