Re: netiquette and freedoms (was Re: NAIS)


"Sheldon Harper" <sharper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns975C5C29F3426sheldharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "J.C." <jcsplace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:vBKDf.419490$Es3.117065@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> "Sheldon Harper" <sharper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns975C56ECBC8A1sheldharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>> "J.C." <jcsplace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:nRJDf.340121$pW2.39818
>>> @fe04.news.easynews.com:
>
>>> snip
>
>>> JC, you would do well to get a grip on yourself. This posting had
>>> 2110 lines of mostly blather. The one before it had 227 and the
>>> one following 223.
>
>>> If you can't make your point in 50 lines or less of new text it just
>>> isn't a point worth making.
>
>>> We're living in a world where the ideal is to permit individuals to
>>> make all the important decisions. We're living in a world which
>>> consistently proves that that's not a particularly good idea. Where
>>> a "freedom" to which you seem to believe you're entitled is likely to
>>> deal me a prolonged and miserable death then just kiss that "freedom"
>>> goodbye. If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't shed a tear over
>>> it, nor do I now.
>
>> You could exercise that freedom and hit that "block sender" button and
>> your problem would disappear. Neat huh?
>
> Thanks for demonstrating so quickly and so nicely the reason people like
> you cannot be trusted

Glad I could help.

PLONK


.

Quantcast