🚀 go-pugleaf

Josh B wrote in message <362B196D.D097F24E@ozemail.com.au>...

>>>>>>> As for Josh, if you actually look at the Josh/Rod interactions
>>>>>>> you'll find they are almost ALL initiated by Rod. Josh makes
>>>>>>> a comment and Rod jumps down his throat.

>>>>> I cant make up my mind if you really do believe this sort of
>>>>>> thing or if you know damned well its a lie and claim it anyway.

>>>> Fraid not Josh, and quite trivial for anyone to check too.

>>> Well, everyone, please do so..... Clear my name please.

>> You dont actually appear to have a 'name'

>> A reputation on the other hand...

> As the expression goes, "I wish to clear my name" (read: reputation)....

It was a joke joyce. 'Josh B' ?  Geddit ?  Obviously not.


>>>>> I have only started about 3 flame wars.

>>>> Odd, Chris' para doesnt even mention flame wars.

>>> That was the overtone.

>> If it was, then this of mine,

>>>> Are you sure you want to do this. Talking generally, most professional or
>>>> web orientated people find background music on webpages very annoying.

>>> I'm sure you have the reference to cite which substantiates that claim...

>> which is certainly an example of something of mine in response
>> to one of yours, doesnt exactly fit your 'overtone' Josh.

> Yes it does.

How odd that you carefully deleted the flame wars stuff from the quoting
and I have had to replace it. Nasty suspicious minds wonder about that Josh.

This is where you trot out the hoary old line about bandwidth.

> The way you said that was in a smart-arse way that was demeaning.

Still doesnt qualify as a flame war Josh.

I didnt realise you were such a delicate little flower Josh.
Did you burst into tears ?  I'm very sorry, truly really I am.

> If you were to say "Is there evidence that this really is true?" and
> I then said what I did, then yes, I would have started the flame war.
> However, the smart-arse and the abusing tone taken technically
> means you started the flame war by provoking me.

How odd that Chris doesnt even mention flame wars in the bit you deleted.


>>>> Anyone can see plenty of examples of you jumping
>>>> on something I have said to someone else.

>>> Bullshite. I can think of 1 time.

>> Doesnt matter what you can think of Josh, extremely trivial for anyone
>> to check that for themselves and find its a hell of a lot more than 1.

> As I said, I invite people to do so.

I dont expect to many who care to check are actually hanging
out for an invite before they do Josh. Then there's the tiny
matter of what they are guaranteed to find when they do too.

>>> I have only talked to you in one usenet group.

>> That claim is easy to check too. Its wrong.

> That is one claim you can NEVER substantiate.

Trivial to substantiate actually. Ever heard of DejaNews Josh ?

> I have only ever posted messages in 9 newsgroups,
> 4 of those have been the ozemail.* groups, and one is
> the aus.students for which the reference is sighted.

Still wrong. Still trivial to check.

>>> And you insulted what was an innocent post.

>>> Me (in aus.students): Oh god, you're here as well

>> This is 'an innocent post' eh ?  Liar.

> Yes it was.

You claiming black is white too Josh ?

>> > rod (         "           ): I've been here for ages Botboy
>> > Me (         "           ): Would you like a skippy badge.

>>> (actually, I have said "would you like a skippy
>>> badge haven't I. Oh well, only once)

>> Guess again, there are other examples in ozemail.* groups.

>Nope,

Yep. Only a little harder to check.

> I have only said this line twice in any newsgroups,

Still wrong. Just like you were wrong when
you previously said you only said it once.

> and unless you know me personally off the web,
> you will never have heard it from me elsewhere.

Never said a word about 'elsewhere'.

> I invite you, or anyone else, to look through my
> posts in ozemail.* groups, or any usenet groups.

Dont expect anyone is actually hanging out for your invite Josh.

>>> I have never been argumentative to anyone
>>> who hasn't been argumentative with me.

>> Oops, thats nothing like what you originally claimed. Anyone
>> who cares to read back in the thread can see that too.

> That wasn't meant to be anything like I originally claimed.

How convenient.

> I can't even remember what I originally claimed.

Yeah, thats rather obvious. You do appear
to have a major problem in that regard.

> That was just something I added in the end.
> That is the reason it is in a new paragraph.

Yeah, right.