🚀 go-pugleaf

 mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Jason <matreya_nospam@currawong.net> wrote:
> 
> > And IMHO, to take issue with someone posting to 3 groups is being a
> > little harsh.
> 
> "Take issue"?
> 
> > Perfectly good reasoning on Vaughan's part. More traffic generated by
> > some anal wannabe netcop than anything from the OP :)
> 
> Vaughan _ASKED_ for opinions!  You know very well that he did.  Simon is
> "some anal wannabe netcop" for responding?

Hi there,

Rest assured that I took Simon's opinion for what it was worth, and as 
Mike pointed out, I did ask for his opinion and was glad to receive it 
(thanks Simon and Mike).  That having been said, I was somewhat relieved 
when Jason jumped to my defence (thanks Jason), because it verified that 
there was a variety of opinion on the group(s) and that some people were 
happy with the reasons behind my crossposting.  There was a separate 
followup on the UK group which was also helpful.

So gentlemen, I hope that's the end of the matter.

> Say, aren't you the same Jason who posted some anti-Semitic statements
> in this newsgroup a while back?

Just a technical point - I think you mean "anti-Jewish" rather than 
"anti-Semitic".  It is true that the latter is often used in place of 
the former, but it is not strictly correct, since the Semitic peoples 
also include Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians and 
Phoenicians. 

In any case, I think it is a stretch to call Jason's post from 21 Feb 
anything other than anti-Mendel (apologies to Mendel).

Vaughan