Stephen Humphrey's wrote: "This is obviously a response to a private email, made public on these boards. And that is shockingly bad netiquette."
...And that was purely a mistake by me for which I apologise profusely to Jim Elwell. I assumed, wrongly, that it was a USMA post, not a forum post. "Which confirms - the *is* the Steve Davies that posted on another forum. "Be aware folks, euric was bad, but at least he didn't send excel spreadsheets to the private house of an individual who was standing in an election for intimidatory reasons. Davies is a UK version of Daniel/Euric. "I won't go any further as here is not the place for it. Individuals can email him privately directly if they want to know more. "Just cross your fingers that he does not respond in a manner that makes it public to all." ...And above is the usual provocative response Mr Humphrey's likes to issue to people who disagree with him. I reply to his post here, but I won't waste energy rising to his comments. If Mr Humphrey's wants to take up USMA forum space throwing pointless brickbats back and forth, he'd be better off finding someone else. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 9:06 AM Subject: [USMA:34848] RE: Vulgar > This is obviously a response to a private email, made public on these > boards. > And that is shockingly bad netiquette. > > Which confirms - the *is* the Steve Davies that posted on another forum. > > Be aware folks, euric was bad, but at least he didn't send excel > spreadsheets to the private house of an individual who was standing in an > election for intimidatory reasons. Davies is a UK version of Daniel/Euric. > > I won't go any further as here is not the place for it. Individuals can > email him privately directly if they want to know more. > > Just cross your fingers that he does not respond in a manner that makes it > public to all. > > > >From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >Subject: [USMA:34838] RE: Vulgar > >Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:28:24 +0100 > > > >Jim Elwell wrote: > > > >" Perhaps you should address your concerns to Daniel. Or are you > > suggesting he get to spew his venom freely?" > > > >No - I'm suggesting that you (and Steven Humphrey's) have made your point > >now, and continually ganging up on this particular individual with the aid > >of Steven Humphrey's is starting to smack of boring, ignorant bullying. > > > >OK. He doesn't share the same viewpoint as you on this particular matter. > >That, believe it or not Jim, is allowed. You have made your point > >forcefully several times. > > > >Let's drop it now, eh? And move on. That'd be nice. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:52 PM > >Subject: Re: [USMA:34826] RE: Vulgar > > > > > > > At 12 10 05, 12:42 PM, Stephen Davis wrote: > > > >No one." > > > > > > > >Right! Have you both got this little bit of pique out of your > > > >systems now? If so, could we drop it please because it's starting > > > >to get REALLY boring now! > > > > > > Perhaps you should address your concerns to Daniel. Or are you > > > suggesting he get to spew his venom freely? > > > > > > Jim Elwell > > > > > >
