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

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:13:39 +0000 (GMT), Rodney Blackall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Thanks a million for 12 kb of quoted quotes of no possible interest to any
>normal person in this group. There may have been something witty in there
>somewhere but now "kindly leave the stage".

I found it of great interest, far more so than your "ab-normal" post,
and who gave you the right to speak for us anyhow?

Wait in the car Rodders.


On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:53:59 +0100, "Derek"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"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?
>> >
>>
>
>