JTK wrote: > > And yet I can't help but notice that you're still reading. > Yes, you have proof that I have read at least one of your posts, and I've admitted that I've read 5-10 more. I'd suggest that 6-11 is a fairly accurate total of the number of your posts that've read. > > I am spelling it truthfully. I think you meant to say "accurately". Not the > same my friend, not the same at all. > No, "correctly" would have been closer. Note that is a Mozilla newsgroup, so calling it (Mozilla) anything else is incorrect. Or, more crudely put, untruthful. Calling it "accurate" would suffer the same problem. > > People keep claiming that they don't want to converse with me, and in fact wish > that I was disabled so that I couldn't participate anyway. What's a guy to do? > I guess it would be reasonable to expect that if you observed proper netiquette then they wouldn't be making such claims, and they wouldn't be wishing that. > 1. I don't make trollish comments. Trolling is generally accepted as "a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames."[0] Which is exactly what you're doing. This thread is a prime example. > 2. I don't spray anything around the n.p.m heirarchy. I don't even *read* > anything other than .general and .performance regularly. The 5-10 posts of yours that I read were in n.p.m.ui, so that's at least three. I don't know if you've posted to any more, but three groups in a heirachy of 20-30 is still a high percentage; 10-15%. I'd suggest it warrants "shotgun" (IMHO). > Are you sure it's *me* who can't get the "true bit" right? > Re-read the definition of the term "troll" higher up, then re-read the sentence above. Mike. [0] - from the Jargon File, <http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html> -- ? Mike Gratton - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. > http://web.vee.net/
