Re: Malcolm doesn't like what's behind him. **Ogilvie Shagged** archived as a classic, well done Derek.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:22:48 +0100, "Derek"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In stitches with that most eloquent, informative, detailed & pointed
reply Derek, you really are a valuable asset when you put your mind to
it. I don't think Ogilvie will show his face here for a while. LOL

PS

Whoops, I thought it so good I decided to cross post to his more
familiar haunts, I just know they will find it of great interest.




>"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
>> >> >> >"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?
>>
>Because as usual I have things dead right, especially
>about you. You don't want any written testament
>from you going into archive for fear it may weaken
>your position, both here on Usenet or in the courts,
>as is sometimes the case I hear. Why don't you go the
>whole hog and post through a remailer?
>
>> >You don't like looking over your shoulder.
>> >
>> And that's completely wrong, not surprisingly.
>>
>Why else would someone cut off their past if it
>weren't to rid themselves of something they knew
>was shameful or cowardly, and why would anyone
>continue to ex-archive their posts if it weren't to
>ensure they could continue acting in that way?
>
>> >> >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?
>>
>All posts are harvested and archived by default unless
>a specific command is made in each of them. That you
>choose not to have yours saved for future reference
>is a bad indictment which goes against you.
>
>> > You don't like looking over your  shoulder.
>> >
>> And that's completely wrong, not surprisingly.
>>
>I'm dead right.
>
>> >> > 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.
>
>Making light of such a convenience proves I was right.
>How do I go about comparing your older statements,
>positions or arguments to you current ones without the
>benefit of any archive of them? Technically you have
>the advantage over others who do allow archiving of
>their posts, but when you play this advantage down
>by saying "there's no convenience about it", then that
>in itself is suspiciously deceptive of you again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>If you already realised I "have an ongoing feud with him",
>why did you feign surprise when I called him a clown?
>
>> >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.
>
>Then let's reverse my conclusion to see if it makes
>your case;
>"Take you, for instance, and the intention written in
> every word you write to remain *completely open
> about your* past here in your usenet life."
>
>It doesn't work, does it? The only conclusion that
>does work is the first one: to remain utterly clean
>of any past here in your usenet life.
>
>> Don't pretend to know something you can't possibly
>> know.
>
>I've shown that I do know.
>
>>Why not admit you haven't a clue why I do it?
>>
>Let's look at your position logically to prove I'm right.
>
>1) If I'm not ashamed of my usent past, then I would allow it to be archived.
>2) I don't allow it to be archived
>therefore
>3) I am ashamed of my past.
>or, in contradiction to 3
>4) I'm not ashamed of my past
>
>if x, then y
>not y
>therefore
>not x
>
>If (1) and (4) are true, you would allow your past
>to be archived because you aren't ashamed of it,
>but (2) says you don't allow it to be archived, so
>(1), (2) and (4) amount to a contradiction because
>they cannot all be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true,
>(4) would be false, meaning you are ashamed of
>your past. This proves that the original conclusion
>(3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a logical
>conclusion from the premises.
>
>tch tch tch
>
>> >You don't like what's behind
>> >you or what's to come, so you do it one day at a time.
>> >Calculating, but it's pathetically sad not to have any
>> >confidence like that in a World as bad as this.
>> >
>> Sorry, but I don't find the world bad
>
>You do, and you don't like it repeating itself on you,
>and the only reason for that is because it must've been
>unpleasant, embarrassing or something illegal. Which
>is the closer?
>
>> >> >> >but I think his intention was dishonest in itself anyway.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You have no proof of that, merely your dislike of him.
>> >> >>
>> >> >You'll note that in response to your reply, Jon clearly
>> >> >showed that his intention was to make certain his posts
>> >> >wouldn't be archived, and although he didn't succeed, it
>> >> >wasn't for want of trying. Like you, he wants to behave
>> >> >dishonestly by making sure his past gaffs don't come back
>> >> >to bite him on the arse.
>> >>
>> >> You really should be more careful with your accusations, otherwise you
>> >> may end up the one being bitten.
>> >>
>> >I'll look forward to it, but in the meantime while waiting
>> >for your empty veiled threats to evaporate, tell me what
>> >made you decide that your past must be erased?
>> >
>> So, after all your guesses as to why I do it, you now confess that you
>> don't actually know.
>
>I do know, but I want you to admit it.
>
>> So why the wild, and wholly inaccurate, guesses?
>>
>They're perfectly accurate a logically true. Getting
>you to admit to it would be the icing on the top,
>but I'm happy with what I've got from you so far.
>
>> >> >Apart from being dishonest, it
>> >> >shows that you are both cowards and lack confidence in
>> >> >yourselves.
>> >> >
>> >> You really do like making a fool of yourself, don't you?
>> >>
>> >That's a bit trite, don't you think?
>>
>> Not in your case, no. I think it fits perfectly.
>>
>When something is trite, it's trite.
>
>> >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?
>
>Because my opinion of you is being read by hundreds
>of others, and that irritates you because I'm yet another
>who's revealed your shameful cowardice and possibly
>illegal intentions.
>
>> 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.
>>
>There you are, you've followed my antics. How
>convenient for you that I can't now follow yours,
>and isn't this a perfect example to show that you
>earlier lied when chirping, "There's no convenience
>about 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"?
>
>Why are you pretending to not see how ex-archiving
>your posts is hiding from your own past? I can find
>mine in a click because I haven't hidden it, but you've
>hidden yours, covered your tracks.
>
>> I know what I wrote and I have a copy of what I wrote
>
>Again, how very convenient for you. Why do you
>deny a copy of your posts to others while enjoying
>the benefit Google archives gives you over them?
>
>> so I'm not hiding from anything.
>
>You clearly are hiding, and it's a very cowardly of you.
>
>> 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.
>>
>And the best reason of all is to ensure your posts
>don't come back to damage you in the future, isn't it?
>