Re: Why did I get brought into this? was(Re: Proctor from Penrith)

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Tony Gatt" <baulko@tig.com.au> wrote in message
392A3BA7.E76BB19D@tig.com.au">news:392A3BA7.E76BB19D@tig.com.au...
> Before anyone gets excited about people like me (and I am referring to
Jonathan
> Boles particularly)  "buying into the argument", I have a right to reply
to
> this, seeing I was mentioned!

> Its funny how when people become attacked personally, they start screaming
SPAM,
> but it is not a problem for them to attack others innocently. (see below -
I get
> a mention and I haven't done anything)
> Whats good for the goose..

Only use Spamcop as a convenient way to track down who sent it. Personal
abuse is normally against ToS anyway, and we had a discussion in here about
the use of inappropriate language jusr yesterday.

> Yes you do. Everytime somebody passes an objection to what you have posted
in
> the newsgroup, it turns into a thread that could almost rival the 1998
Patricks
> event.. always with you clutching at straws in a vain attempt to not have
to
> utter the words "I was wrong"

>From the Get F***** thread (posted at 0807 this morning):

"D'OH! I did a search, and that one did not show up. Time to eat humble
pie." Sounds like an admission of error to me.

> > Tony is just as bad, always attacking me personally,
>
> This is where I step in, for the last time I DO NOT ATTACK YOU PERSONALLY,
> unfortunately, you lack the ability to be able to decipher between a
personal
> attack and constructive criticism.
> I bring you into it after about your fourth response for failing to admit
your
> mistakes. There is a huge difference

>From "Guards and Mobile Phones"
"Dave Proctor the master of crosspost will oblige you any minute.."

>From "More trouble with female guards"
"who? the person who sent it or YOU."

There was one other one which is no longer on this server: "Ask Dave
Proctor, he knows everything."

None of these comments were strictly necessary, and none of them added
anything to what was being said. They were snide personal remarks.

> > rather than what I am saying. By all means, attack what I am saying, but
> > back it up with the facts.
>
> I shall, please check the archives, and better still, check the followup
> personal email.
>
> Oh yeah, I call this a personal unwarranted attack as well, but you don't
see me
> running around the schoolyard screaming "Killfile" and "spamcop".

It was an observtion based on your direct references to me. I believe it was
warranted.

(Followups set away from aus.rail since nobody else wants to read all of
this).

Dave