Re: Malcolm Ogilvie doesn't like what's behind him.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:27:34 +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
>>> >> >> >"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.
>
>Nonsense. You haven't a clue about me and it shows in your every 
>comment.

You are like a cheap comic written on recycled paper, we know all
there is worth knowing 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.
>
>Oh, what, precisely, did you "hear"?

You like to make empty threats about taking legal action to protect a
name that is mud. LOL

>> Why don't you go the
>>whole hog and post through a remailer?
>>
>No, I leave that to your friend Pete.

Ah here we have old faithful CPD, compulsive pete disorder, when
caught with your pants down blame pete, pete who, and what remailers?

>>> >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?
>>
>If you can't think of another reason, then it shows that you are not 
>capable of thought.

Because there is no reason but to hide.

>>> >> >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.
>>
>No, it doesn't. It is me exercising my freedom of choice.

You are hiding, of that there is no doubt, but why is the question.

>>> > You don't like looking over your  shoulder.
>>> >
>>> And that's completely wrong, not surprisingly.
>>>
>>I'm dead right.
>>
>When were you last right about something?

Today!

>>> >> > 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.
>
>No, it doesn't, it just shows up your inability to think.

It shows you to be a fraud.

>>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.
>
>As you wish, but then you haven't a clue why I don't let Google archive 
>my posts, so all your guessing is a waste of time.

Guessing? there is no need to guess, it's a fact, you are hiding your
lies, trolls and drivel in some naive way you probably think if you
bury your head deep enough in the sand you wont be liable for what you
said? lol

>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> 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?
>>
>I feigned no surprise when you called him a clown. I feigned some slight 
>surprise, but only for a moment seeing it was you, when you appeared to 
>question the word "intuited".

Last resort of the weak.

>>> >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.
>>
>Your attempts at logical argument have failed.

On you certainly, because you never were very logical, just
transparent

>>> Don't pretend to know something you can't possibly
>>> know.
>>
>>I've shown that I do know.
>
>Err, at the risk of repeating myself, no, you haven't, because you 
>haven't a clue why I don't let Google archive my posts.

We all know it's to hide.

>>>Why not admit you haven't a clue why I do it?
>>>
>>Let's look at your position logically to prove I'm right.
>>
>snip ludicrous rubbish

Getting angry are we?

>
>> This proves that the original conclusion
>>(3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a logical
>>conclusion from the premises.
>>
>You have already demonstrated that you cannot manage logical argument, 
>and this second attempt was even worse than the first.
>
>>tch tch tch
>>
>You can probably get that tick cured.


>>> >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?
>>
>None. Your nasty mind betrays you into considering matters which have no 
>connection with me whatsoever.
>
>>> >> >> >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.
>>
>No, you don't know. You haven't even come close. And why do you want me 
>to admit it? And why should I?
>
>>> 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.
>>
>"logically true"???  Oh purleeese.
>
>>> >> >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.
>>
>Err, no, it isn't.
>
>>> >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.
>>
>Here you go again. What evidence do you have to support your claims?
>
>>> 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."?
>>
>No, but then we've already demonstrated that logical argument is not 
>your strong point. As, in this case, b does not follow a.
>
>>> > 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 can find all mine in a click, too. It doesn't concern me in the 
>slightest that you can't.
>
>>> 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?
>>
>I don't think of it as conveying any advantage to me whatsoever along 
>the lines you claim.
>
>>> so I'm not hiding from anything.
>>
>>You clearly are hiding, and it's a very cowardly of you.
>>
>Your opinion is both wrong and worthless.
>
>>> 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?
>>
>Like I said, you haven't a clue why I don't let Google archive my posts 
>and your many guesses are not even remotely close to the mark.