Re: I need to trace an IP address


"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9bydnQ8QWeU61YzVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
Maxwell wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m4ydnRBO2-dTrYzVnZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
Buttman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:41:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques sayeth:
Nice try but not really a very good twist on the real situation. The
quote you have presented here without the accompanying text that
completes the post was written ONLY after the bio was attacked by
another poster. In other words, the information about the bio was NOT
used until it was mentioned negatively by someone else and in response
to what was said.

And that changes things, how? One day someone accuses your article of
being crap, you defend it. The next day someone else call it crap by
flagging it, and now you inform the wikipedia admins that you agree it
should be deleted?
You CAN'T be this stupid! But.........:-) It should be obvious that as
far as Wikipedia is concerned, and a simple Google search confirms this
BTW, the article was listed yesterday by Wiki as a candidate for
deletion by them. This simple fact coupled with the idiotic posts made
here by you and Mxsmanic on this thread simply convinced me that it just
wasn't worth my time to defend the issue any longer.
Since the article isn't really needed any longer anyway, I went to the
site and added my name to what I assume was yours. It doesn't matter
really.
All you have succeeded in doing is to remind me the article is no longer
needed.
If you wish to consider this some sort of victory, please do so.
As for my asking that the bio be deleted; that decision was made for
the
exact reasons given and has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia.
Oh, I see. Its just a coincidence that you decide to remove your self-
written vanity article less than 12 hours after somebody with a
roadrunner connection in El Paso (which may or may not be me) decides
to flag it as against the wikipedia guidelines.
No, as I said, it was NOT coincidence. The "activity" here on the forum
coupled with realizing that the article was being used as a hammer as
you have done here simply keyed my actions to go to Wiki.
To tell you the truth, until Mxsmanic's post, I had virtually forgotten
the article was there. You can verify that by searching for the last
time I mentioned it on Usenet. In fact, I think I'm fairly safe in
telling you that what you will find are very few if any times I have
mentioned the Wiki article unless someone else mentioned it first; which
of course shoots a rather large hole in your "self importance" theory.
For your information, Wikipedia "deletes" thousands of files they feel
are unnecessary and take up needed space on their site.
Yeah, like your crap article.
Unnecessary comment. Shows REAL agenda here. You REALLY need some
lessons in how to nail people. You're way too obvious with statements
like this one. It fairly shouts that you have "other issues" with the
person you're addressing. In my case, you seem to be harboring a bit of
issue over that run in we had a while back when I told you you were the
worst CFI I've ever encountered on Usenet. :-)
Our decision to
add to the deletion process was simply offered to inform Wiki that we
understand the situation completely.
"Our"? Oh please.
Yes "Our". Explanation not necessary to you.
God, what a small world you live in.
Maybe one of these days you'll realize you're not as important as you
think you are.
I don't think on these terms. What YOU believe I think of myself isn't
necessarily what I DO think of myself......simply your opinion.

Sorry you see me this way, but it obviously can't be helped.
DH

Bull***. You're finally taking it down because the world is making you
deal with how lame it makes you look.



Right! :-)) Dream on.

--
Dudley Henriques

Then leave it up another 30 or 45 days. What have you got to loose?



.

Loading