🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott Hillard wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:41:04 +1000, Chris Ryan <cryan@plugged.net.au>
> wrote:
> 
> >[snip - Scott being an idiot]
> 
> Clueless fuck, clearly didn't get the point at ALL.

Because, you gormless twit, you had you head up your arse and weren't
making yourself clear.

> >> >       YES. All advertisements, handbills, pamphlets or notices must
> >> >       have name and address of person authorising the publication.
> >> >       (Note: Car stickers, t-shirts, lapel buttons and badges, pens,
> >> >       pencils and balloons are exempt).
> 
> >> Sorry, couldn't give a rat's arse about censorship, as you may have
> >> guessed.
> 
> Ie:  I couldn't give a rat's arse about what the Government says I
> cannot read, say, view, etc.  I will do as I please.

Good.  Your previous post implied that an objection to spam was
censorship.  I (and anyone else) can be annoyed and object to spam
as much as we want.  Censorship doesn't apply.  If someone spams,
we have the right to object on the basis of commonly held netiquette.
 
> As will all people of good conscience.

Naturally.
 
> >Fine.  Let's start with you then.  Don't ever post anything to Usenet
> >ever again.  Perhaps an auto-cancel bot can be setup to ensure this.
> 
> Censorship of ANY kind is an abomination, you dolt.  THAT is the point
> I was making.

No, you didn't, hence my point, you clueless fuckwit.  Sorry the 
sarcasm was beyond your limited mental faculties.
 
> >Also, while we're at it, perhaps your emails might be idiotic too and
> >require censoring.  You'd better stop sending them as well.
> 
> >In other words, brainless one, don't be a dickhead & get a life.
> 
> You clearly haven't got a fucking clue boy - come back when you do.

I've reduced the sarcasm this time, perhaps your diminished processing
system can work things out - or just FOAD.  Whatever. 

--
Chris Ryan
cryan@plugged.net.au