Re: Malcolm doesn't like what's behind him. OGILVIE squirms under pressure from derek

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:25:15 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Derek 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>
>>"Malcolm Ogilvie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Derek 
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> >"Malcolm Ogilvie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Derek 
>>> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> >> >"Malcolm Ogilvie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Derek 
>>> >> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >You have been secretly adding an archive script at
>>> >> >> >the bottom of your posts as part of a signature. The
>>> >> >> >script isn't well placed for most of us to spot, seeing
>>> >> >> >as you tucked it so far down the sig page, so what's
>>> >> >> >your problem in having your posts archived, Jon?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> What on earth are you getting so excited about? Why didn't you check
>>> >> >> whether his attempt to prevent archiving of his posts by putting
>>> >> >> "x-no-archive:  yes"  in his signature is actually working *before*
>>> >> >> making a great song and dance about it?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >Whether it works or not in Jon's case with his set up
>>> >> >is irrelevant. His intention to stop his posts being
>>> >> >archived, and the secretive way he went about doing
>>> >> >it shows he isn't a serious contributor or honest.
>>> >> >
>>> >> No, it doesn't. And he can't have done it in a "secretive way" because
>>> >> you noticed! Anyway, I mark all my posts in the same way, and much less
>>> >> obviously, because it's done in the headers. Had you noticed? And if
>>> >> not, I hope you're not making the same accusations against me.
>>> >
>>> >I do. It seems you don't like what you write here to
>>> >be recorded for future inspection, for some reason.
>>>
>>> A very good reason, though not one you would begin to understand.
>>>
>>I understand very well.
>
>No, you don't. Don't pretend to know something you can't possibly know. 
>Why not admit you haven't a clue why I do it?

There is ONLY one reason to use x-no archive and that's to HIDE your
posts, and the ONLY reason you want to do that is because you don't
wish to stand by your abuse, libel, defamation, lies and criminal
behaviour on usenet.

>>You don't like looking over
>>your shoulder.
>>
>And that's completely wrong, not surprisingly.

Spot on I'd say.

>>> >Could that reason be because you are afraid that
>>> >what you do write might be thrown back in your
>>> >face later on?
>>>
>>> No, it couldn't.
>>>
>>I think it could, and it's pretty obvious you do too, else
>>you'd let your posts be archived the same as everyone
>>else's are.
>
>Oh, so you know that "everyone else's" posts are archived, do you? And 
>just how do you know that?

He doesnt need to, it's a given.

>> You don't like looking over your  shoulder.
>>
>And that's completely wrong, not surprisingly.

running out of steam so soon Ogilvie?

>>> > Most others here have a little more
>>> >confidence in themselves than that, so where's yours
>>> >gone to?
>>>
>>> Nowhere. Anyone who wants to can archive my posts.
>>
>>How convenient for you that I haven't already
>>done that, and how convenient for you that all
>>my posts are available to you at a click. I should
>>be feeling at a disadvantage, but I don't.
>
>There's no convenience about it. I'm trying hard to think of a reason 
>why I should want to read your posts more than once, indeed if that, but 
>nothing has occurred to me so far.

Ah so you hide your posts to lessen the burden on usenet space? ha ha
he he he you're looking like a real chimpanzee Ogilvie.

>>> >> >> Whatever his motive, he isn't preventing his posts appearing on Google,
>>> >> >> which you could have found out for yourself. Perhaps if he 
>>> >> >>realised that
>>> >> >> the X-no-Archive line has to either be in the header or the 
>>> >> >>*first* line
>>> >> >> of any message, he might achieve what he apparently wants to.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >Thanks for the info on that. I must admit I didn't check
>>> >> >it out for myself before accusing him of dishonesty,
>>> >>
>>> >> But then that wouldn't be like you, would it? Accuse first, check the
>>> >> facts later seems to be your modus operandi.
>>> >>
>>> >I was right to accuse him, seeing his intention, so
>>> >I did have the facts prior to accusing him.
>>> >
>>> No, you didn't, because he wasn't archiving his posts.
>>>
>>He intended to, and that's all important to me.
>
>Obviously. But then you have an ongoing feud with him.

Which you have decided to support J Ball and M Ogilvie, very nice.


>>Take
>>you, for instance, and the intention written in every
>>word you write to remain utterly clean of any past
>>here in your usenet life.
>
>No, no intention of that at all. Don't pretend to know something you 
>can't possibly know. Why not admit you haven't a clue why I do it?

You do it to hide in the vain hope you cannot be responsible for your
actions.


<snip lots of ogilvie repetition>

>>Why don't you address
>>my remark and explain why I shouldn't think you to be
>>a coward?
>
>Why should I care an earthly about your opinion of me? I've followed 
>your antics in here for long enough to know all I want to about you and 
>that doesn't include valuing your opinions.

It doesnt appear to stop you wanting to abuse, defame, libel and
attack us does it?

>> You are hiding from your own past, afterall,
>>and there's no bigger coward than the coward who's afraid
>>of himself, is there, so why do you see me as a fool for
>>showing you this?
>>
>In what possible way am I "hiding from my own past"? I know what I wrote 
>and I have a copy of what I wrote, so I'm not hiding from anything. The 
>fact that it obviously disturbs you when people decide not to archive 
>their posts is, to me, one good reason to continue to do it.

AH well that explains it then. You get dafter by the day Ogilvie, how
frustrated you must be when we make you look an ass.