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

"Malcolm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
"I know I'm no Olivier
But if he fought Sugar Ray
He would say
That the thing ain't the ring it's the play
So give me a stage
Where this bull here can rage
And though I can fight
I'd much rather hear myself recite
That's entertainment!"
- Robert DeNiro, "Raging Bull"

>
> >"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?
> >
>