[on topic, sort of] Taking a hint from the Quakers....

..... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

Regards to all,

Casey Wilson
Freelance Writer
and Professional Photographer
PP ASEL and proud of it

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:28:43 GMT, "N2310D" wrote:


.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

Voldemort?

Don

Don Tuite wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:28:43 GMT, "N2310D" wrote:

.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

Voldemort?

Don

More like Moaning Myrtle.

N2310D wrote:

.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.


Sort of reminds me of Rumpole's "she who shall be obeyed!"

"N2310D" wrote in message
news:vVpdh.5430$QC.5224@trnddc02...

.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective tactic
shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any of my
posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

Regards to all,

Casey Wilson

Good for you. Now, for everyone to come to this realization.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
Good for you. Now, for everyone to come to this realization.

And create a new thread to inform us all of their decision?

N2310D wrote:
.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

Now now, Jim's not that bad. Oh wait. Perhaps you meant someone else
;-) Hard to tell, there's so many people open to ridicule around here
nowadays, myself included.

It's ironic that you guys constantly fill this group with proclamations
that you won't talk about Anthony any more. Life would be great if
you actually did that instead of announcing it to everyone.

Hmm. Perhaps y'all just need a new viewpoint. Technically speaking,
that is. What are you using to read all these posts? If you use
Google groups in outline mode, you can visually see all the dozens of
useless posts and skip over them.

Regards, Kev

Take another hint from the Quakers and shun all modern conveniences ...
like the internet.

Howdy!

In article .com,
AJ wrote:
Take another hint from the Quakers and shun all modern conveniences ...
like the internet.

OK. Y'all are now oh-for-two.

This Quaker doesn't shun modern conveniences. I'm not unusual in this
regard. Perhaps you confuse Quakers with Amish?

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...
Howdy!

In article .com,
AJ wrote:
Take another hint from the Quakers and shun all modern conveniences ...
like the internet.

OK. Y'all are now oh-for-two.

This Quaker doesn't shun modern conveniences. I'm not unusual in this
regard. Perhaps you confuse Quakers with Amish?


Please accept my apologies, Michael.